alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nor was it intended to represent party position but a rebuttal of what i perceived as the tone of "legalism", ALB, in your reply . i thought i made it clear by my comment.
Quote:No. i am putting words into your mouth, aren't i?In regards to the three examples of existing legislation i mentioned, mass picketing, flying pickets, unofficial action …and one i forgot…secondary solidarity strikes…i have engaged in them all and even though they were illegal under the statute laws, only threats by the employers and warnings from the police ever occurred. To actually have taken action against us would have provoked the situations even further rather than calmed it. …but that was a judgement call by the bosses and the State…Today, it could well be different and probably would be…But they had the law on their side…even if they declined to apply it…and always have it in reserve…The decisions to use them are not for political parties such as us but for those engaged in the industrial action, to weigh up the consequences of their actions as they see fit. I think we should be prepared to offer unqualified support in regards to the actions i have cited and not insist that they follow the law. We came close to crossing that line when we suggested that the miners should have held a national ballot rather than the forms of regional and pithead decisions they chose to make.
My Message #35
Quote:we begin with study groups, reading groups, discussion groups that become part of wider general movements for union and political rights. We shouldn’t jump into the deep end without considering the concrete conditions of the place and of the time.Quote:I say if you can't organise as socialists, then don't. Do whatever it takes first… I do not consider socialist principles binding in places where they are inoperable… In places such as Burma, for example, where there is no movement for democracy, but only terror, I would if I had the power adopt more extreme measures, and I wouldn't be particularly impressed by WSM members telling me how unsocialist I was.PaddyS on the link provided by YMSNot exactly identcial view but i think there exists an overlap between the two positions (i was not a member of the SPGB at the time of this debate on Africa and have read very little of it and i have no intention of commenting from retrospect on it) Again to emphasise YMS interpretation of the Communist Manifesto i previously highlighted and that i also concur with
Quote:It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.Even our party comes second sometimes in priorities in the broad sweep of history…hard to accept for some members but we aren't exactly essential and necessary for the development of socialist ideas and the establishment of socialism….the world will still go on without us just perhaps in a slightly different fashion…thats historical materialism, that we proclaim adherence to, isn't it?
i did bit of googling and you are correct…a number of conspiracy websites cite the connection to dismiss Brand and highlight the infiltration of the "Zionist bankers" into the "opposition". Here's one examplehttp://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Is-Russell-Brand-an-Illuminati-plant-This-was-predicted?pid=6779541Hard to get away from this web of supposed connections…David Icke, he too thinks Karl Marx is part of the big conspiracy
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1432081938.htmlNo, i did not get an anti-semitic message from it , only that Brand himself is linked to members of the elite, (and how 'incestuous' those links are)Is there parts of the establishment he deigns to be openly critical of because of divided loyalties? i recall ex-member Bill Knox in his biographies of Scottish labour leaders, making a particular point of linking the upward mobility of them by referring to their marriages to women from the 'upper class' rather than from their own.
I thought this contribution by YMS on another thread was of interest to this and i think very much related reformism and reform thread.
Quote:Quote:The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act. Substitution not allowed. The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do? Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way? Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'? It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.42,845 have signed now….Can it be something we endorse as a form of anti-nationism…that political policy choice determines nationality, not blood and birth….But will those who have signed pass the Norman Tibbet test and support Scotland's cricket and football team, or its variant, John Major's test ..a pint of warm heavy which a whisky and Iron Bru chaser …
i noted at my visits to Conference and ADM that the Chair gets the best chair …the nice comfy one…is this still the practice , comrades?
Brand on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOe_4zxQCI#t=313
Resizing and placing photos is beyond me on this site so a link will have to dohttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2015/05/selective-criticism.html
Quote:I don't suppose they'd be interested any more than us in petitioning the capitalist state not go ahead with legislation for which the government has just got a mandateSo the party advice to the trade union movement for the upcoming anti-union legislation, also part of the Tory manifesto, is that the working class voted for it – so lump it.Do not challenge it, particularly by your trade union sponsored MPs in Parliament, especially not legally through international courts and above all obey the law and and do not resist it, especially no form of any industrial action that challenges the authority and the power of the state…and from now on and until the law is repealed or amended (by another capitalist party) trade unionists will conduct all their strikes in accordance with the law….no wild-cats…no mass picketing…no flying pickets…The SPGB will support you only on what we deem are sound lines thus we accept for all practical purposes the proposed legal definition of what is a lawful and democratic ballot and withdraw that support if such is trangressed by a union…No. i am putting words into your mouth, aren't i?Within the trade union movement we are fully willing to work and co-operate with non- and anti-socialists for the sake of the interests of the working class as whole in its fight against capital and to ensure we reach a satisfactory share of the surplus value we create. We do no cast aside our party identity when we join with fellow-trade unionists. Yet by engaging in the same manner over the different issue of freedom of political organisation and expression, we baulk at such a position because it would mean the end of the party's existence, and according to Gnome, there are only 380 genuine real authentic socialists in the UK…of which none exist outside the party or even in other organisations that call themselves socialists which they may have joined. If need be we could reach a compromise …the usual SWP/SPEW one…whenever they present their party line as an individual member of the union or whatever they announce they do so in their (personal capacity). Can we have a SPGB member on a shared public platform being identified as SPGB but advertised as doing so as an individual and not officially representing the party ….not according to our clearly defined rules. As i keep saying, i fully support critical support to certain working class actions and our task is to make that criticism effective. Political abstention, i suggest, is not the best way of gaining an audience. It is the reason we took part in elections …to be heard. Finally to again ask…In 2003 when a million marched, would our advice have been…stay home and watch tv, instead…or would our critical support be suggesting a one-off protest march is tokenism and to succeed or even come close to prevailing, many more such marches and other actions are required but above all that success will still be qualified…it may stop this war but will not end all war.
Apologies for my fading memory but could someone inform me of the result of the party poll regards participating with our party banners in certain events alongside non-socialists (and even anti-socialists) such as May Day and could they refresh my memory on the wording of that relevant poll question.
fuck it, can't get the image the right size but here is the url for it http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XnymVJaRO6E/VO1WOS2ti6I/AAAAAAAAOz4/6v5YMrbKGM8/s1600/the_political_voice_by_party9999999-d7rmplo.png
“As in the advanced capitalist countries, however, this should still involve opposition to all other parties in order that the socialist issue shall be kept free from confusion.”
Quote:“The Socialist Party is merely a tool to be used by those who want socialism and who think that organising democratically is more important than seeing yourself as bigger than the society that you want to inhabit and think it important to have a voice for the possibility of a future that is so often buried. Ultimately, what socialist conscious workers decide to do will be for them to decide. If they decide that parliament is an irrelevance then they will ignore it. On the other hand, if they see that to ignore it could be dangerous and also that it has potential, then they will make use of that potential.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1287-november-2011/what-wrong-using-parliamentThat is going to be the reality. We will be an instrument of workers’ self-emancipation or they will see us as an irrelevance and pass us by. We are nothing without the working class and everything we do must be about how we reflect and connect with our fellow workers otherwise we are merely dogs howling at the moonIn regards to “ besides trying to organise into a socialist party ought also to struggle to get the freedom to organise into trade unions and win elementary political rights. As in the advanced capitalist countries, however, this should still involve opposition to all other parties in order that the socialist issue shall be kept free from confusion.”Serious thought should be given to actually thinking we should be creating a socialist party when simply there exists no firm foundation to form one. We should recognise the limitations we have, and rather than create prematurely a political party that may not reach an receptive audience by having such principles as our hostility clause and proscription of religious persons, we begin with study groups, reading groups, discussion groups that become part of wider general movements for union and political rights. We shouldn’t jump into the deep end without considering the concrete conditions of the place and of the time. I'm loathe to advocate rather unmaterialistically that there is a universal prescription to be applied everytime and everywhere. The party rightly opposes the idea of being the vanguard and leading workers, but as workers ourselves we shouldn't be reluctant to be " that section which pushes forward all others…" and i don't think we can do that pushing by being a political organisation outside the tent pissing in.
“The SPGB would carry on propaganda as usual come rain or shine, democracy or dictatorship.” Even when association is forbidden and socialist propaganda illegal?…. And we would refuse to share our umbrella or parasol…damn us I believe it was you who has pointed out how our activities were curtailed by a degree of self-censorship during both wars than by any other factor. Sorry, Vin, I was quoting the party http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/law-order-or-justice
