alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SP, i hope you do understand that not all on the Left and not all in the Corbyn camp will be receptive to our ideas. As DJP says, our position is guaranteed to be unsettling for those who have utter faith in labourism and trust in leaders. So when we do provoke a reaction such as petty vandalism against our HO then i do see it as a sign that our argument has had a result at reaching some who can only answer with an infantile play of words on our name. I offered 3 responses. Going public and giving the gutter press another excuse to smear Corbyn would be the worse option. Going to Private Eye would be continuing their coverage on and hopefully showiing we pay the price for our principles yet still stand firm . I doubt a private message to Corbyn would even be acknowledged by his office much less read by him but it does offer an opportunity for him to apologise on behalf of those acting without his encouragement and show that he is indeed a person of honour despite our political differences. My prefered option is to forget all about it. That we make sure our insurance premiums are paid in case we are subjected to a more serious act of revenge. I am confident that our cynicism and scepticalism about Corbyn will prove right and ample opportunities will arise in the future to expose Labour and his views . My only conecern is that we do in a consistent fashion and with the same sincerity and integrity that Corbyn is getting all the kudos for. The price we pay will be the ire of those unwilling to accept criticism. There is no easy way to tell someone they are wrong and mistaken and are victims of false hope, and prone to delusions. Nobody thanks you for saying they have been conned and sold a pig in a poke but it is our task to let the cat out of the bag …(how i love to mix metaphors).I have not joined in the denounciations of the front cover, not because i like or dislike it, but because i have confidence in our lay-out team that they know what they are doing (and i am sure they are aware and will take on board other member's thoughts for future issues). I will give them the full respect of not instructing them on how to do their job. I will let them have some degree of artistic licence and not impose my own opinions. We have delegated the responsibility to them to design a magazine that has an effect and impact. I am prepared to overlook the occasional lapse in judgement IF there has been one.Needless to say, though, i personally see a future SS cover of a photo-shopped picture of Corbyn on bended knee before the Queen which he will have to do to join the Privy Council and the well-known phrase to express the irony. "The great appear great because we are on our knees: Let us rise."
Message #546Perhaps if we still have a photo of this we can forward it to Private Eye and get some more publicity from them…Or we could go public to the right wing media with a press release and ask that Corbyn repudiate the actions of his more zealous supporters. Or be discreet and send a private message to his office and politely inform him of this incident and see what he does in response. Personally, i'd just forget it and put it down to experience and chalk one up for ourselves that we can still get under their skin.
As you would expect this weeks Weekly Worker is dominated by analyses of Corbyn. http://weeklyworker.co.uk/Vin, did you note that Corbyn will have to get down on bended knee to the Queen before joining the Privy Council and make yet another oath of allegience to her.Interesting to learn that Churchill deliberately declined to attend a number of Privy Council meetings which would have ham-strung him in his freedom of speech over government policy.
CheersI agree that is untouchable as our D of P and we have acknowledged that much in the way Marx and Engels declined to improve or amend the Communist Manifesto.When it is printed in the Standard we also add to the D od P"This declaration is the basis of our organisation and, because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the party in 1904, its original language has been retained."My point was that i agree with you that it expresses and sums up the position we hold and try to convey to fellow workers. But rather than keep presenting it as an archaic catechism we begin to use it as a basic theoretic tool for communicating and persuading. As you say (and keep saying) it is an essential part of our case hence the importance of interpreting it over and over again, not as a repetitive mantra but by other approaches for its meaning to be absorbed and appreciated. It may be a joke but did i read someone put its words to music one time? But i would like its content and the essence to be communicated in different ways and perhaps from different perspectives and angles. A tall order for sure but achievable for skilled writers. (I'm afraid i'm not). Each clause can (and as said has already had a commentary) added to it but a we so often do, we do it once and leave it at that. Just how many times do artists do and re-do flowers and bowl of fruits to show their talents in colour and detail etc…Did Van Gogh say done the one sunflower now to forget them. I note you dropped the term "hostile" and replaced with "opposed". I think this was one that resulted in a big debate in the WSPUS , wasn't it? And "hostile" was placed in the D of P originally as a reference to what the Socialist League said about its relationship with the SDF – that it would not be "hostile" to it. Something in the new party of the SPGB members did feel aggrieved about Hyndmans and others control within the SDF and many other experiences of the SDF can be directly related to the SDF…our whole organisational structure for one and possessing a party organ solely owned by the party. When i read old material about the means of production and distribution i find i often wonder if people really associate themselves with those. Does a shop-worker or office-cleaner feel an identity with the means of production. For sure they can share the experience of powerlessness but can they feel part of the class that produce the wealth? We know for years there was this interncene strife between white and blue collar which i think has now rapidly disappeared with the removal of relative privilege and power from lower/middle management and technicians. But still we have vast numbers unorganised and often isolated who don't appreciate their own power and influence because in the past it has been the industrial/manufacturers that always get cited eg "mines, mills, railways" in our literature. I find i like to supplement the term capitalist class with owning class, employing class, ruling class, or often than not employers. Same with working class – non-owning class, the dispossessed class…i dislike the terms bourgeoisie (unless your French, of course ) and proletariat. Personal foible even if many say proletariat is a more accurate technical term for ourselves. I still think its pretentious to call the boss class, the bourgeousie and i always mis-spell it which i am sure others do as well. Our language can seem hyperbole to readers…"enslavement of the working class" but that is the true reality and what we have to explain more clearly. We have to prove to fellow workers that they are indeed "wage-slaves" not as a free person entering a fair contract that the libertarians reach as their conclusion and our economic analyses must show how are being robbed of what we collectively produce. And i already said that personally i am very cautious of economic articles…they can resemble the gibberish of algebric calculus and logarithms texts i read in school…the eyes go blurred despite the importance of them. All those early ABC on Marxian economics from Keracher and Plebs from the past should be rewritten in much the same way i suggest we start promoting the D of P in more imaginative essays and articles. We ourselves have a treasure trove of articles that can be again be re-published into a new Marxian economic primer. Rather than re-produce the D of P in clause form, perhaps re-write it as an election manifesto, i mean as a narrative explanatory article. Despite all the threads and their lengths we all hold no fundamental disagreements but we do differ on how it should be expressed and as i said about the impossibility of choosing a party logo, each member thinks his opinion should be the deciding one – the price we pay for our democracy.
TWC, I appreciate your conciliatory comments.You say we have been thwarted so far by two developments1) Leninism. i think we both agree that Lenin was pretty much you average run-of-the-mill Kautskyite 2nd Internationalist so i would say the problem was already there which again you indicate by referring to the SDP/Bernstein situation.Our own roots are within the SDF. Was the split from it by the SLP/SPGB inevitable in 1904? Or could a situation have continued as it did with Luxemburg/Pannekoek that they remained in the SDP for a decade or so longer, preserving a link with the labour movement in general. It is a cliche i keep hearing from the Left that we must protect the link between Labour Party and the unions. Jeremy Corbyn was recently repeating this. It is a truism that there has to be a connection between a socialist party and the workers organisations. We do argue for a separation of organisations but we don't endorse a divorce. 2) No idea what neo-Ricardianism is and certainly it wasn't and isn't the reason we have not been fruitful in acquiring new members. And you will be aware that in the long exchanges with LBird my response has been…if i was sat in the pub listening to all this theoretical analyses …i would move tables. And that is the response of any worker if he or she cannot understand or relate to the reasons to reject capitalism and accept socialism.Keep it simple – Say it oftenOur primary goal is to communicate our ideas. Can i suggest that you are perhaps the best person to re-phrase and re-word the D of P, to put in in various different styles of easy-to-read language that people can more easily comprehend. Explain the D of P in different ways and perhaps it will be easier for some to take it in. The websites does have a commentary but more can be done. Educate is one of the three legs that is the duty of the socialist movement. Turn the D of P into our ABC. Organise and agitate being the other two and we have to question whether our organisation can be improved. I have suggest that it is now practical and feasible to go beyond the SPGB (a national party) and become a real world socialist party using the internet. I have also suggested that we have to agitate more and that means boots on the ground in the class war at events and protests. Obviously a lot more can be said. I have been led to re-read John Crumps criticism of the party. It is surprisingly contemporary. Change some names, substitute some events and it can all apply today. i recommend members should read it or re-read once again to refresh your memories and see where we agree and disagree on his observations.from that time. http://libcom.org/library/introduction-27Basically Crump complained that the SPGB missed opportunities and openings and if this is still happening surely we must ask why. Crump questions our lack of action at the disillusionment with Wilson's Labour which led to a radicalisation ofmany Labour supporters – not quite a direct parallel with today where Blair is the one being rejected and subsequent a massive inflow of more idealistic Labour supporters and outside Labour the rise of various new left-wing parties but there is a close enough comparison to suggest that perhaps we might be repeating the same mistakes as Crump identified we made in the 60s. I don't say it has all the answers but it does have some questions for us to reflect upon. Some on this forum will have personal experience and more insight on what Crump was trying to do with his this statement and may well be able to read between the lines of it. I'd like to hear from them.
I do not hold all-knowing powers, TWC I am still learning and still exploring for what may help bring about socialism. I have to return to re-evaluating and re-assessing the ideas i hold because of one important factor – that big huge fucking elephant in the room – the fact that we have not achieved socialism and not just that, but, today, it is as if we have not advanced one single step forward to achieving it. Place whatever gloss you wish over it, we have not been victorious in our task as a party. My lack of knowledge about why that is means that i do question everything that we hold to be true, double-checking the veracity of our case, re-tracing our tracks to ensure we are on the right road. Searching for possible mistakes in how we apply our ideas. I, myself, have only a political strategy that is in my opinion the best suited for the present circumstances as i see them.It is to keep promoting socialism as a member of the SPGB.I have placed plenty on the public domain arguing for socialism based on what i assumed was the party case – No doubt close scrutiny of all those articles may result in exposing some errors and failings – but if you still persist that my political practice and those ideas and positions expressed in public reveals a non-socialist (or even an anti-socialist) at work, all to the detriment of the Party, i will review my membership in light of your wisdom on these matters. But while i hold disagreements and conflicting views with fellow members on why we are not the successful socialist party the founders thought it would be and use this forum to exchange propositions, if this leads to a denial for the need of debate or discussion then i wonder if our hostility clause is being applied to those within the party and not those outside that oppose it.
Quote:Without its scientific platform the party has no convincing reason to exist at all.With no members it doesn't exist. Period.Address yourself to this pressing issue before you continue questioning my credentials as a Socialist Party member because i dare express the heresy that we just might not have it quite right on everything. But that is just my own opinion as i see things.As it has been already stated it is also the view shared by 99.999999999999999% of humanity and you aren't even asking the reason why that should be.Instead substituting the mantra of the D of P being the crowning achievement of Marxian scientific thought and forgetting it was written and agreed by mere humble men and women in a particular time of history as a result of a series of unique political events. As a materialist, if the SPGB disappears and if the D of P is forgotten, the movement for socialism doesn't end. The SPGB is not the be all and end all of the working class need for emancipation and other organisations and other expressions of socialism will be born to replace us. Anyways, i beginning to think it is all rather a mute question since i increasingly expect the mutual ruination of the contending classes and that barbarism will prevail….My gloom and doom is only reinforced by what Einstein said was insanity "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
It has been debated at conference (more than once?) which has determined that socialists will indeed take the oath of allegience. Why a member would volunteer to stand knowing this will be the case and then decline to take the oath on principle puzzles me. And recall the party rule..an elected member takes his instruction from the Party, not his individual conscienceIf any elected member to Parliament refuses then he would not be permitted to take his or her seat. Our purpose is to use the Commons as a fulcrum to denounce capitalism and eventually when a majority acquires political supremacy it will have a role in establishing socialism.
You have completely lost me. Where did i condone the un-comradely abuse of political friends by a political enemy who i was comradely desirous of befriending….and just where was i encouraging the abuse as a blood sport. Please spell it out clearly to me, i am at a complete lost at what you are getting at.
"By the way, you recently violated your second sentence when you condoned the un-comradely abuse of your political friends by a political enemy you were comradely desirous of befriending."Please elaborate
I did read one commentator who referred Corbyn to his own defence of using the word "friend" in regards to Hamas, that it is a normal usual sort of diplomatic nicety.Now, isn't singing the National Anthem similar diplomatic protocol and not singing or (even mouthing the words as Redwood did with the Welsh anthem) going to alienate a potential voters of patriotic Brits over something that is simply symbolic and with no real importance.He has accepted a place in the Privy Council but i believe that comes with the job and he has already taken the oath of allegience when he became MP.Storm in teacupAs a disclaimer, i have to stand up for the Kings National Anthem here, every time i go to the movie…(or exit the theatre while its played which i rarely do unless it coincides with a need for a pee.Anyway on Rembrance Sunday the press will be out in droves to see what colour of poppy he will wear…red or white or both.
Afed's response to Corbyn herehttps://wearetherabl.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/this-is-not-our-victory/I have not got any disagreement with what it says…nor any great disagreement with the comment to the article which is asking much the same question as we all are
Quote:Now, the question of how we can best communicate that criticism and get people to engage with our ideas is certainly an important one. After all, we are as you say a marginal group within the working class as a whole, and we need to be conscious of that when putting across our ideas. It’s important not to be dismissive of the hopes and aspirations people attach to parliamentary politics, and I hope I’ve managed to avoid that in my piece here. But that doesn’t mean we must accept the politics of Corbynism simply because they are currently popular, or that those who currently subscribe to his ideas are not interested in or capable of engaging with criticism.I see the moderator is firing a warning shot across our bows again…Will take his earlier advice c and p my last reply and re-post on a separate thread
Quote:I therefore challenge you to point out just one of the 50 or 50,000 shades of capitalist criticism ― just one of them will do ― that actually advocates the same practical solution as we do.I provided one individual and one political organisation which met your request. The means to achieve that solution may not be the SPGB's but they seek the same society as we do as a solution to all the social ills. The Party has no claim to the means and methods of achieving socialism other than our own opinion and our evaluation of the evidence, that didn't appear from nowhere in an idealistic fashion but from direct experience of membership of the SDF, hence the language and context of Clause 7.Others disagree and differ. Our task is to convince them of the correctness of our approach. You demand that a socialist must be an adherent of our D of P and that simply is not so. It is a conclusion reached from members of the SDF who were expelled from that organisation. Others reached different conclusions and sought other roads. We may have out-lived them but longevity is not proof of infallibility, although it does strengthen the case that we reflect a tradition within the labour movement that has some worth and value to workers.
Quote:Whether we disagree with Bookchin’s hypothesis here or not, it is clear that he is on the same wavelength as us. This is not a discussion between supporters and opponents of socialism but a discussion amongst people who are agreed that the way forward for humanity lies in the establishment of a world of common ownership, democratic participation and production to meet needs.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1990/no-1027-march-1990/socialism-and-ecologyIn case you think that was a blip
Quote:Murray Bookchin is on the same wavelength as us in that he, too, stands for a classless, stateless society of common ownership in which money becomes redundant and the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" applies. But the agreement does not stop there. He recommends Marx's analysis of how the capitalist economic system works ("As a study of the capitalist economy as a whole, it [Capital] has no equal today. Marx's economic studies are central to any socialist analysis").Quote:Murray Bookchin is one contemporary thinker and writer who comes close to us on a number of key points. He stands for a democratic society of common ownership where there'd be no production for profit, no working for wages and no money and where the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” would apply, even if he doesn't call this socialism (though he might if you got him into a corner).Quote:There are anarchists and anarchists. Some share our aim of a classless, stateless society of common ownership and popular participation where the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will apply and where money will be redundant This is the view put forward, in the past, by such anarchists as Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker and Alexander Berkman and, today, by Murray Bookchin.Can't you accept that others may well be right and we wrong? And in the long run, its not ourselves or our opponents who will decide who has the worthier case – that is the decision of the working class as they embark upon emancipating themselves…and whether we exist as a Party with a D or P is neither here or there. We could disappear into the mists of history and footnotes in obscure text-books and a new socialist party will arise without the baggage of the past and there need not be any D of P treated as the Ten Commandments although much of its essence will still be held and promulgated. At worse, it will merely slow down the acquisition by the working class of the pre-requisite consciousness. I have hitched my colours to the flag-staff by being an active member of the SPGB but i still think i have things to learn from others and when we disagree, it is not because they are all anti-socialists and deserving of hostility. Do we have to return to the days that calling the SLP political "cousins" became a reason to throw about accusations of party disloyalty.On a personal level i found it hard to be on a picket line with a co-worker, united to stop the bosses, and then to treat him and on occasions her as a political enemy because they had a different understanding upon how to reach socialism from my own. Argument and discussion took place but they were conducted on the basis of comradely disagreement, and not based on accusations of being an accomplice of the capitalist class because opinions differed. If there is not a reversal of attitude and approach, the Partywill soon be preaching only to the converted and that is sadly a diminishing number because i am not convinced that the same old style of politics is any longer valid. And i hastily add, i have not seen alternatives proved as an improvement, hence and for the umpteenth time i keep suggesting a dedicated conference where no part of the party case is taboo or sacred cow…everything is up for dissection – even if it is only to re-affirm our positions.
The opening and the closing paragraphs of John Keracher's Head-Fixing Industry first posted on an abortive website projecthttps://worldsocialism.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/the-head-fixing-industry/
Quote:In this struggle, the power of thought is a mighty weapon. Let us learn to wield it more and more effectively. Let us bring the revolutionary ideas of the modern proletarian movement to the front, so as to uproot capitalism and establish a new social order. Let us sweep away, not only the head-fixing industry of capitalism, but also sweep away the system of profit making that is served by the head-fixing industry.
