alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The SPGB does not claim the infallibility of the Pope. Our case against reformism is one of our main positions but it isn’t Holy Scripture handed down to us. It was not Marx or Engels thought, nor Kautsky or others of the time. Our Declarations of Principles are not the Ten Commandments engraved in stone. They were conclusions reached by debate and discussion. We argue that what was learned by others before us is still shared by ourselves to this day and in our view events confirm its correctness. So we still hold by our D of P. We could well be wrong and many say we are but we try to explain why error is unlikely and we offer rebuttals to those who question its wisdom.The formation of the SPGB was due to expulsions (and subsequent resignations) from the SDF and our political ideas stem from the lessons learned within that organization.Other socialists disagreed and remained within the SDF. Others felt they acquired different knowledge from their time in the SDF and went on to adopt the ideas of De Leon’s SLP (but they weren’t an exact carbon-copy but adapted to British conditions). Those who remained within the SDF consequently evolved and adopted other ideas on top of their Marxism such as Labourism and Leninism but they did not completely shed their socialist aspirations. Over time many re-defined what socialism is but it was not universal and for a lot on the Left a core of the tenets still existed to justify their self-description of socialist.All our opposition is not about denying our socialist opponents their socialist credentials but about challenging their concessions, compromises and gradualism to achieve it. Our task is the exact same as in 1904 – to muster fellow workers and fellow socialists under our banner, not to exclude them by insisting our socialism is the true socialism and no divergence can be permitted from the SPGB case. We say if you can’t prove our arguments wrong then join us. We also say the way we advocate and educate and agitate is something that is not fixed for all time either. We too are still adaptable and willing to adjust our approach to best fit circumstances and events but without surrendering our own principles purely for popularity. And if need be and we persist in remaining a very small political organisation, i am open to how we can make the most of what resources we possess to punch above our weight
The slogan i believe has a long history, originally being the one of the Chartists in the 1830s/40.There is a also many varieties of non-violence, some are by no means, passive docility…there are occupations, sit-downs, blockade pickets, non-cooperation, collective actions that go beyond turning the other cheek of 'Christian' pacifism. One thing we should always be remember that militarisation of protest will lead to defeat…Who now remembers that that the Syrian civil war began from a peaceful youth protest movement and grew into the bloody carnage it is now when non-violent opposition was abandoned first for self-defence. It provided the opportunity for outside influences to take control and dominate the resistance to Assad. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-non-violent-approach-to-class-war.htmlhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-few-views-on-syria.htmlI think Gene Sharp wrote a lot on the topic. One of his books is reveiwed here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1291-march-2012/book-reviews
Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?We hold that our interpretation of how to achieve socialsm is the correct one, but those who suggest other methods of obtaining such a society non-socialists and perhaps de facto anti-socialists by the means they advocated? Of those who claim to be socialists but disagree with the SPGB case, can they all be tarred with the same brush or are there various differences within them that should be noted and acknowledged and taken into consideration by ourselves?Is there is a distinction between supporting particular reforms and opposing reformism? If so how is this put into practice? To kick it off the discussion, the views of one WSM member.Isaac Rab of the WSPUS tried to define a socialist as someone who realises that: 1. Capitalism can no longer be administered or reformed in the interest of the working class or of society. 2. Capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, wars, crises, etc. 3. Socialism can solve the social problems confronting society today, since the material conditions are ripe for socialism, save the lack of a socialist majority. Much as you said but he adds socialism cannot be rammed down the workers’ throats against their wishes; The socialist victory is dependant upon the fervor and enthusiasm of the determined, conscious socialist majority. There is in these definitions much elbow wriggle room to include a number of our political rivals. Rab goes on to propose -Socialists welcome critical and searching questions. Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline. Socialists are not dogmatic sectarians who are blindly and religiously faithful to socialist conclusions despite the lessons of unfolding experience. Should an examination of the real world prove the case for socialism to be invalid, it would be a serious reflection on those who continued to be socialists. That is why socialists are open-minded, in contrast to being broadminded. They do not tolerate exploded myths and superstitions. Yet they should be patient with individuals groping to find out what the score is. Especially this is true in a day and age when the material conditions of existence are ripe for socialism with the sole exception of maturity of social and political thinking. The only thing standing in the way of socialism today is the lack of socialists.The problem today is that of socialist education. And surely we know how teachers and educators have approaches to their task that does not punish or alienate those who are their students. They apply different teaching methods to their lessons…but most of all they try to make the learning process an entertaining one that is a pleasure to experience. The best teachers will also learn from their students.
Brown's radical roots been discussed by alb before herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1241-january-2008/thoughts-premier-brown-thirty-years-ago
A bit of info on the arms fair here…what's for salehttp://www.rt.com/uk/314948-london-arms-fair-weapons/Should we condemn a person for promoting a socialist position (i assume any future possible SPGB MP would also be drawing a similar conclusion to the public attention – capitalist hypocrisy in making profit from the arms trade while supposedly trying to halt the effects of such) for the wrong reasons. Or should we not give credit where credit is due because the Party case is not fully offered in a parliamentary question.
Quote:Every Socialist must know that the problem of militarism—like that of unemployment—is inseparable from capitalism, and while Hervé undoubtedly errs in concentrating his energies upon anti-militarist propaganda since militarism is but an effect of capitalist exploitation, yet our sympathies are heartily with him as against Bebel's patriotic clap-trap….The particularly anti-militarist propaganda of Hervé has undeniably an educational value, and to that extent it is to be welcomed; it is also an inevitable reaction against the jingoism of men like Bebel.my emphasishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1907/no-34-june-1907/bebel-and-herv%C3%A9-german-party-leader-jingoI think we should be careful with our criticisms …if i was, to offer an analogy, a worker on strike, would i spurn the support of Lucas because she does not condemn the wages system but instead supported my pay claim… If i was someone caught up in a war or civil war, any move by Lucas to stop the belligerents purchasing the weapons being used against myself would be welcomed by myself…it would be self-defeating and perhaps suicidal not to support someone proposing a partial remedy even if i did realise it is not the cure to war…Another analogy…if the district i lived in was subject to cholera outbreaks should i oppose a politician seeking a plan to build a safe water and sanitation system …on the principled objection that capitalism cannot stop epidemics breaking out …We should be selective with our criticisms and use common sense upon both the circumstances and the person deserving of it. …surely we can differentiate the specific from the general …Are all non-socialists the same?…Surely not…
A worrying developmenthttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34206924Imagine the chaos of an escalation between Turks and Kurds would have on refugee numbers and also the security of the existing refugee camps
Perhaps we could use them as a web-based radio station, a constant streaming channelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radiohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
SHOCK HORROR , THE WW did not print one of my many letters to them…oh, well, i had a good run while it lasted and no hard feelings. (perhaps others might see a cause for the editor of WW to decline publication)But for those interested and since it is topical even if historical , i repost here.It was in reply to an exchange i was having with Stephen Dianmond on immigration whose last letter said Debs positon was a Christian moral one "Just to elaborate on Deb’s attitude to immigration and add to Stephen Diamond’s comments, Debs views developed from an anti-immigrant position to the one espoused later in life of inclusion, and this was not from Christian charity but from what best advances the socialist cause. I think his ideas evolved from those of a trade union leader with vested sectional interests of his members to the broader ideals of a socialist spokesperson, representing all workers of all lands. Debs inherited the prevailing prejudices of the American worker, reflected by the Know-Nothing Party of the time. He attacked the immigration agents as representatives of capital – “enemies of American workingmen” who wished to “chinaize the county” and he openly welcomed legislation that permitted the authorities to deport “to their despot cursed home” the “victims” of these agent’s efforts. Debs found the Italians even less desirable than the Chinese. “The Dago” he claimed “works for small pay, and lives far more like a savage or a wild beast, than the Chinese,” This Italian “fattens on garbage” and cares little for civilization, and therefore, “able to underbid an American workingman” Only in this way can the Italian appear industrious and Debs warned that Italy “has millions of them to spare and they are coming” Jews fared little better. When it was announced that the London Board of Guardians had instituted a program to transfer Russian-Jewish immigrants to the United States, Debs claimed that that this would increase the already increasing hostility towards immigrants. Identifying these immigrants as “criminals and paupers” Debs bemoaned the fact that most were able to “take up a permanent residence” and strongly advocated that “it was possible to end the infamous business.” These early views of Debs changed from class experience, not charity, and made the unions and the socialist parties ever stronger as the influence of the foreign-born sections of the IWW, SLP and SP, shows. The positive possibilities were highlighted by that Irish immigrant, James Connolly, when he was a labour organizer active in America. I’d rather not remark upon Stephen Diamond’s observation “The migrants fleeing the class struggle in their native lands do not more deserve the largesse of the working class than those who stay behind, particularly when they remain to fight,” as it appears to condemn every migrant and settler from all across the world for the past several centuries, including, no doubt, his own antecedents and those of his friends and neighbours and work colleagues. " alan johnstone
When refugee charities might not be impartial.As an example of the complexity we face in understanding the background events, this article which i genuinely don't know how reliable it is but exemplifies the problem.https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/uk-charity-which-shares-syrian-opposition-aims-and-objectives-benefits-from-aylan-kurdi-tragedy/
The right thread now…>>The pro-Corbyn nuevo-nationalisation movement's thoughts on state-ownership and nationalisation expressed herehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/joe-guinan-thomas-m-hanna/dont-…Nothing much about capitalist relations or the continued extraction of surplus value, simply the question of organisational structure and the various advantages. I think the article shoots itself in the foot with this comparison Quote:“Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all used state-owned enterprises to fuel spectacular economic growth.” All three examples were dictatorships suppressing the unions to promote the power of the state rather than empower what liberals call the civil society.Also, yes as part of the alternative solution …sewer socialism as the Americans call it…municipal socialism…We will have to dust of the cobwebs of our literature to offer a rebuttalBut if we wish to simply concentrate on the positive…the installation of individual roof solar panels and feeding the national grid with the surplus power, must be something socialism will consider in its energy choicies but in capitalism, we have the likes of Koch Brothers demanding taxes be imposed on such decentralised producers of energy to preserve the returns of investors and owners of larger power stations and i am sure a similar reactionary movement will arise in the UK…Imagine…people receiving free energy…can't have that, can we, what-ho? Think what else the great unwashed will demand and expect for free…Health-care, was an exception …kept the bounders fit for our factories…and that was one step too far…and we will fix that, impose doctor visit charges on top of all the others…OK humour is not my strong point, but what i am suggesting is a few things with Corbynomics could be used by ourselves as i said previously, if we wish to take a less antagonistic approach…ask his supporters, why stop there?.."lets go further, Jeremy…lets use your own arguments fully and see where it leads logically towards…"Not lead the discourse but push it …."I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." – Eugene V. Debs
i think the article is justified in using the term battle.We do advocate that workes engage in the class struggle in what we call the class war. Divisions in class will always exist within capitalism and conflict between them will always take place until we establish a socialist society, peacefully if possible, forcibly as necessary. Some may be pacifits but certainly by no means all of the SPGBLet also not forget that the the term 'battle' is not necessarily a metaphor since a look at history will show that they were indeed real battles with many fatal casualties. Armies and militias, police and private police have violently suppressed strikes and protests. Occasionally, workers fought back but the odds were always against them. In our own lifetimes, we have seen militarised police, banging shields with their batons, Zulu style, and then cudgeling and bludgeoning innocent miners in the UK.I see nothing incorrect using the word battle.
Forgot to add this bit by Cameron
Quote:Assad has to go, Isil has to go. Some of that will require not just spending money, not just aid, not just diplomacy but it will on occasion require hard military force.Soften the public up with some emotional scenes, shed a crocodile tear or two and now to take advantage and say more war is the solution… and the media will leap upon the bandwagon in support…
Refugees are forbidden by regulations from working while their application is in the pipeline but here EU mandarin Juncker calls for this prohibition to be lifted from Day One of their arrival so refugees can get employment. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34196378As been said elsewhere, the number of skilled and professional within this exodus is high and for some gaining work will not be such a difficulty. The poor are stuck in the camps in Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon, what we are witnessing is the movement of the relative wealthier refugee…those who can afford the price of transit. I might well be wrong, no one is doing a wallet-check to verify this, it is all anecdotal. (i keep thinking of the movie Casablanca for some odd reason…i doubt very much if Hollywood will try anything similar)I also note Farage is stirring hate again…they are economic migrants…they are ISIS,,,there are too many…sink their ships…
Germany can cope with at least 500,000 asylum seekers a year for several years, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said. "I have no doubt about it – maybe even more."http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185353Confirming what i earlier posted about the capability of accommodating large movements of peoples if there is a will to do so.
