alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“I don’t think we should be discussing the WSPUS in their absence from this Forum either.”
As far as I know the only WSPUS active on this forum is Darren O.
So far he has kept his counsel to himself for whatever reason. How connected he is with other members I have no idea. His main activity is related to the SPGB.
A Portland member Morgan was once active in the IWW and also posted on Libcom but has fallen silent on their forum
And then there is StephenS who is US based running his personal and a socialist blog that was intended to take advantage of the increased interest in socialism, now that it has come out of the closet.
But as the topic is whether the WSPUS actually exists or not as a functioning organization I think we have to find out for sure.
Their home page has not been updated since 2016 when Joe Hopkins and Darren posted.
I have not heard of Ron Ebert in a while.
And stalwart, Karla Rab, passed away. Video of her doing a presentation on human nature can be seen here
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/05/human-nature-video-talk.html
Unlike the other companion parties, the SPC, WSPNZ and WSPIndia who hold administrative meetings plus limited activity, the WSPUS doesn’t seem to be able to.
Still clinging to the illusion that the Kurds were building socialism, decrying the withdrawal of the American “protective shield”
Why Are Leftists Cheering the Potential Demise of Rojava’s Socialist Experiment?
“….The basis of Rojava’s economy are cooperatives. The long-term goal is to establish an economy based on human need, environmentalism and equality, distinctly different from capitalism. Such an economy can hardly be established overnight, so although assistance is provided to cooperatives, which are rapidly increasing in number, private capital and markets still exist. Nor has any attempt to expropriate large private landholdings been attempted or contemplated…The practitioners of democratic confederalism say they reject both capitalism and the Soviet model of state ownership. They say they represent a third way, embodied in the idea that self-management in the workplace goes with self-management in politics and administration…what is being created in northern Syria is a remarkable experiment in economic and political democracy — not only Kurds but other minority groups and Arabs consciously working toward socialism. Why shouldn’t this be supported?….”
Wez, what about Murray Bookchin as a classic example of what sort of writer I had in mind.
Chris Hedges would be someone contemporary who has created an audience we cannot expect 100% adherence to a Declaration of Principles that he has never ever heard about.
As for approaching socialist consciousness, we tend to set the bar very high and apply our own standard. As I tried to say in another post, people travel towards socialism by different routes depending on culture and traditions and legacy. It means they bring their own baggage with them. Most folk are reticent to discard that baggage. They require to be eased into dropping language, terms and practices.
And of course we too are not immune, clinging to our own expressions. “Free access” for instance is basically just SPGB short-hand. But this goes deeper than only our organization. “Resource based economy”, for example, instead of production for use. While Parecon is a name of an organisation, “participatory economics” is not. But this has a long history. I like to use the description “cooperative commonwealth” and “industrial democracy” but these are archaic definitions these days. So yes there is a lot of re-inventing the wheel. Oh and how I detest the manner in how we repetitively say “wages or salary” at every turn.
It has now become a challenge even to define the left today. And as you say when you look at Maduro and Ortega, these left populists are authoritarian. Some feel we should be interacting more with the ecology movement rather than the political left – but there does exist an overlap – the eco-socialists. From my reading the only difference between them is the reform demands.
Your reference to leaders and political immaturity needs clarifying. When people recognize great orators, great writers, great educators, great debaters, those possessing such talents become the focus of the media, turning them into “leaders” because of the interviews and attention. A election candidate will receive more credence than a branch member. We all tend to defer to the authority of knowledge and communication skills. Isn’t this the case with ourselves even today. A core of public speakers. Wasn’t there periods in our history we had to deal with the Party being identified with individuals – “Turners Party”.
We debate this issue regularly…its the case not the face, but we know the media and the public demand something else. It isn’t so much immaturity but our failure to explain what we ourselves mean by leaders and leadership, a leader-free Party and a party of equals, delegates and representatives. The differences is not beyond understanding as we had a long period of religious history which was centred on the very topic – the Reformation and the creation of Presbyterianism where churches were ran by elected elders appointing ministers. The concept of democracy has not always been so abstract.
I think the issue is not WHAT we say but HOW we say it and secondly TO WHO we say it to.
Yes we have a problem of being a relatively minuscule organization, Robbo, one that has no audience and no voice and no presence. Without those we are fated to remain small.
However, why is it that individual thinkers and writers can make an impact and be influential? Sometimes they are saying much the same as we are so why does a particular person resonate with the wider workers’ movement yet a political party like us fails to achieve a hearing?
I again say that no one member has the solution and that we require to rely on our collective knowledge and experience to come up with some strategy for the future. We require a dedicated themed discussion leading to a conference where we bring our companion party members to either physically or more likely through the Skype-type video meetings. We also invite non-SPGBers as observers with opportunity to speak as guests (but not to vote, obviously)
Perhaps it is negativism and bad for morale, Robbo, to say that if we continue as we are, doing moreorless the same things as we always have, then the prospect of growth is bleak. We won’t accomplish that transition to even what the SWP was called , the smallest mass party.
There is truth in the aphorism that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. But equally we cannot engage in self-harming actions just to be seen doing something. Merging with reformists would be self-destructive as has been said. But there is a state of relationship between being aloof and being absorbed.
Let us identify the baby-steps that require to be taken to get us on the way as you advise. I’m happy with that being a start. From those we can gauge success and progress and build on. But if none is detected then we may require to consider a more radical change option.
We cannot even get members, even office holders and committee member, to frequent this forum and it isn’t because of the recent tech snags it has been having, the old forum similarly lacked engagement. So what does that say? Well, it appears we aren’t willing to talk to one another. Which brings me to a crucial question just how many talk socialism to those outside the Party? Are we simply a club?
The Green New Deal hits its first hurdle – the Democrats de-fang the movement
The Wall St Party aren’t going to upset it corporate donors.
But the Greens propose a fight to control the Democrats – a battle I believe is fated for them to lose.
The WSPUS I believe had an existence as the Socialist Educational Society. Perhaps this is what it should revert back to and drop the pretence of being a functional socialist party. People don’t appreciate being mis-led by appearances and grandiose claims.
Perhaps our own SPGB branches should become Socialist Standard Reading Groups if they can find no other productive constructive political role.
Vinnie, I have made my view clear on the hostility clause elsewhere. But it takes two to tango. I have been disappointed with some who are part of what I consider to be on the Thin Red Line having their own unspoken hostility clause. At least we are up front about it. But I agree, it is not a blunderbuss against all non-SPGBers.
None of us have all the answers to everything (unless the answer is 42)
Robbo, political parties do not emerge from nowhere. They arise when they meet certain conditions and when the ground has been prepared in advance. They reflect the ideas people already hold in their heads, and rarely introduce new ones to them. The resurgence of the right and nationalism exists because these never went away, they simply didn’t have the suitable vehicles for expression.
Baby-steps are not going to get us anywhere, Robbo. A look back at conference and ADM agendas and you’ll find an obsession with fine details but no Big Ideas.
I am emphasizing that we make a formal transition from a national organization to a transnational one to kick-start the Party from its presently stalled progress and no where does that say regional and local activity halts. The content of the Standard is already the collaboration of worldwide members, as is the production of our pamphlets. We even have an assistant secretary able to perform duties from Eastern Europe. The internet and blog committees have “foreigners” doing much of the tasks.
What is lacking is the fact that members of the companion parties are missing from this cooperation. We have no coordination. But various umbrella organisations such as Zeitgeist can operate at a global level and not be identified as simply a national political party.
As for being a international political organization, I am sure our election committee will inform us that we face a number of administrative obstacles from the Electoral Commission rules. But let us be honest again. There has been voices within the Party that participation in elections should cease due to the lack of even the minimum level of exposure and publicity.
Of course, naturally we should be striving for credibility and be seen as a valid party of the working class. How do we take a party of a less than 200 who bother to vote in Party polls to one of several thousand? How do we transform branches that struggle to achieve a quorum into be local bases for action? How do we create a website, a forum , blogs, Twitter, Facebook presence that has significant traffic? These come with increased membership and the transfusion of new blood into our activities. But back to the question. Where do the new members come from?
Relax our strict admittance. I think you refer to prospective members holding religious beliefs. I doubt there would be any marked difference in membership. But our attitude changing and relaxing to those active participants in the huge number of reform movement…then perhaps we might see a rise in members who would have an audience for the socialist message. This means explaining how we can individually work towards various reforms as we do within our trade unions but how our political organization must stand apart but act as an umbrella to muster under. But again we must offer the same supportive and solidarity as we do to unions. We recognize unions as existential bodies for our class, we need them for survival. I suggest there are many environmental and humanitarian groups that mirror that need which we should not be aloof towards because (like unions) remain within the parameters of capitalism.
There is always going to be resistance, ALB. The class struggle cannot be avoided. It is the never ceasing treadmill.
There is no question as Buffet said, his class has been winning. But there are signs that workers are growing more combative after a period of subjugation. (Blindly, if we generously include the populists outbursts like the Yellow Vests)
The issue we face is what role will our organization have in it, if any, at all.
The socialist case is that we must transcend class struggle and establish a class-free society. Are our fellow-workers any closer to understanding and achieving the conditions for such a society?
Or once more, are they placing their faith in trust in leaders and reforms? Now we have Elizabeth Warren and her radical shadow Alexandra Ocasio Cortez replacing Sanders as the media focus.
“No saviour from on high delivers,
No faith have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must shiver,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.”Surely after near on 105 years of much the same approach, we should start to separate the wheat from the chaff, identify our (as one comrade said) Unique Selling Point, locate our target audience and start launching this message with all our resources. And I think for the first time in the Party’s history we have those resources at hand. Let’s not waste them.
We understand that not every country’s political legacy is identical and that we need to adapt and adjust to those local specific conditions. We cannot just simply transport the SPGB to foreign lands. And let’s be honest – that is what we did during the British Empire, cloned the SPGB.
We have the basis of a genuine world socialist movement that we should embrace in this epoch of global political ramifications, from migrants to climate change.
Even currently within the Party we have many non-UK residents active in the committees and the running of it. Let’s build functioning WSM and not one that remains an aspiration.
Just to clarify I was giving stats for the LSC of the DSA
But that is not answering the question “Why are we still members” when within the foreseeable future there is little chance of any of us seeing even the beginnings of a mass socialist movement.
The founding members created the SPGB to accomplish their aspirations which they had very optimistic expectations of achieving in their lifetimes, or at least their children’s and definitely their children’s children.
How many current members realistically think the same? Can we point to the growth of the revolutionary stirrings of our fellow-workers which are more mature and developed in consciousness than those within them in 1904. Or are they further away from acquiring consciousness than over a hundred years ago.
Of course, we resort to the theoretically possibilities that revolutions can appear “like magic from nowhere” but are we the organization which is sowing the seeds?
Our proudest boast is that we are keeping alive the socialist ideals. Maybe so, but the most that is proving to be is keeping these comatose ideas on life-support. Our friendliest critics believe us to be relics from the past.
“I have already put forward my own suggestions to how we respond to our current malaise by holding a major conference to re-focus and re-organizing our structure so I won’t bother repeating them.”
Been there, done that, even got the T-Shirt!”Dave, I would be interested in actual proposals you have for discussing our future and then re-structuring our Party.
I have missed a number of conferences but i’m not really aware of too much formal debate and discussions on the deep issue of the purpose of our existence. Should it be as a political party? An educational advocacy group? A publisher,even? Surely our end should firstly reflect our actual activities towards our aims. These are the vital questions we should be asking ourselves.
That is perhaps an answer to the question why I am still a member. Citing that well known cliché, I believe we are a movement not a monument and that we can evolve. After all, it was the changes within the SPGB I perceived which made me re-join. If it had been the same Party that I originally I left, I would still be a non-member. And in my small way I believed I had a contribution to make to helping to slow down its decline.
Not only are our companion parties like the WSPUS failing to function as a political party, most of our own branches exhibit similar failures. We have to be fit for purpose. And the brutal truth is that we aren’t and anyone who argues differently is in denial.
Too often we appear more like a members’ club rather than a party. Maintaining the SPGB appears to be the primary concern of some members rather than the attaining socialism. If I am right, then I would like to know why this is.
New Year is the traditional time of self-contemplation and I think we should indeed consider the relevance of our Party and its role. A look at our history shows this process arises periodically when the world around us begins to lose its connection with the Party’s perception of it.
I make no apologies for hijacking this thread and raising the broader questions.
For a less personal view, I took the liberty of posting this on our blog to begin a dialogue.
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/01/some-socialist-self-contemplation.html
People will certainly be drawn much more to this sort of organization than ourselves, 700 members and 6 branches
I have already put forward my own suggestions to how we respond to our current malaise by holding a major conference to re-focus and re-organizing our structure so I won’t bother repeating them.
But really fundamental is why we are still members of the SPGB when none of us holds out too much optimism for the future, either for the Party or the planet.
A bit of soul-searching is required.
As our December SS article suggested would happen Brasil’s Bolsonaro has begun his crack down on those who hinder the expansion of capital
“In the move favourable to his allies in agribusiness, which have criticised giving large swaths of lands to native groups, Bolsonaro transferred the responsibilities for delineating indigenous territories from the Justice Ministry to the Agriculture Ministry.”
Certainly will make them more popular if business can survive the cost.
The budget will still see the introduction of a basic payment of around €780 (£700) a month for those on low incomes.
The retirement age will also be lowered from 67 to 62 for millions of people who have paid into the Italian pension system for at least 38 years.
The government has also agreed to introduce a string of tax cuts for individuals, including relief for self-employed people earning less than €65,000 (£58,500) a year.
Tax has however been increased for banks, insurers and gambling companies.
Since coming to power seven months ago, M5S and the League have seen their popularity rise to around 60 percent.
