alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You got the idea, Vin, because i kept harping on and pushing for one, that would involve issues much wider than simply feedback on the election campaign which will be the remit and limit of this Outreach meeting and why ALB thinks the title is silly which i plead innocent of…i kept saying it would be a premature discussion (message#5 on this thread and also on other threads) until we have had reports from the likes of Oureach.Hopefully, since there will not be a special conference despite the value of one, time will be specially set aside at ADM, perhaps an extra day…or an added evening session…if that doesn't curtail the Manor Arms bevvying too much.
Quote:"In my (limited) experience, it is a tricky thing to do, particularly in our age, where membership of a political party is viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility."As our previous exchanges on WW concerning Dave Douglass and social activism showed the suspicions are both sided…The cautIon a political party may have when embarking on involvement with a movement that comes in all shapes and forms and cannot be easily slotted into one pigeon-hole. Sometimes the purpose of a reform campaign is questionable, other times it is the tactics they are using, and others it is the organisational structure running it. But we are accustomed to not expecting perfection in the union movementMy problem is how to offer critical support that does not deter what people are doing by discouraging them nor distancing them from ourselves by not always agreeing. Once more, as i have said, i'm open to other folk's ideas…and i often re-evaluate my politics, as much as you do, probably (as seen by my now mellower attitude to social activism).
Quote:why are they suspicious? Perhaps they suspect that those members are there with ulterior motives of their own.We witness how all our good intentions not to manipulate or control the trade unions based on sound theory, in my view, and to ensure their political independence are mistaken for apathy and passivity, despite all the contrary evidence. So yes it is not easy, particularly if the motives are not sincere and purposefully ignore or derail our relationship with economic organisation for political party upmanship. I think though that our principle on unions can be transfered to reform campaigns without raising too much suspicion on our motives…honesty is the best policy, and we all know the many left infiltrators lack that integrity which we possess. One of our rare strengths that we can build upon I wouldn't recommend intervening in local or one-issue campaigns unless i had good reason to be part of it…But members not always getting personally involved doesn't discourage the party from sympathetically reporting such campaigns as perhaps homelessness (and we probably do more now of that but is it enough?). And we can offer some logistical solidarity …office and meeting space and use of computers and printing – and, of course, not to mention trucks full of literature At a higher level, I recall the late Pieter Lawrence suggesting that we fail to interact effectively with the NGOs and charities like Oxfam in presenting our global solutions…and since he first raised this lapse several years ago, haven't these organisations become even more political about the system of society and could well have been influenced in a small way by our views on the exchange economy and not merely the distribution of wealth…who knows…
"In preparation for the famous meeting on 23 May to carry out a post-mortem on the elections campaign"How will its findings be passed on?A formal written report to the EC to review and circulate to the branches?Or a statement of its conclusions issued, asap, through the discussion lists for members to comment upon?
I'll follow on with some additional remarks, Stuart, and apologies if i misinterpreted but what you appear to say is that all this talk about socialism and the working class is old stale stuff, no longer appropriate for today. Many on the left of the political spectrum have indeed come to believe so. They argue that the hope for socialism is a romantic hopeless dream. They seek to focus on identity politics class such as race, gender, nationality and other such factors used to oppress us rather than class. Nevertheless, the revolutionary potential of the working class has been demonstrated many times. Through debate and analysis, socialists help one another understand what's happening in the country and the world and how best to face the challenges working people confront. History is full of examples of workers’ struggles.Our political practice should be conducive to better activism. The main reason to join a socialist organisation is to work toward socialism and we constantly keep our eyes on the prize. But membership in a socialist group ought to complement our practical work – not compete with our activism, nor drag us into sectarianism. Only a visible and vocal socialist organisation makes the alternative to capitalism known.Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
Quote:I'd be interested to hear your cases for it. My own view is that our crisis runs too deep for the old answers to be any use. The Marxist critique of capitalism and its proposed alternative has lost its force, and it ain't coming back.I have now placed on record on this forum that i do think we need to return to the debate and see where our position may be weak or may be offer some strengths …I'm no one man genius with all the answers and would personally benefit from the application of a collective group-think on the question. But right now, my starting point is that we have stood aloof from day-to-day bread and butter issues and many of the myriad manifestations of the oppression and repression our fellow workers suffer under. My primary concern is solidarity to instill confidence and determination but also to urge the next step…
Quote:the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"But to continue with my own angle on that general approach i would add that we have never held a callous desire to bring the system down by letting people starve, as is sometimes attributed to us. We have tried to argue that it is a lot more difficult to build socialism on the ruins of society.On the contrary, we aim to show people that by organising and struggling, they can defend themselves and even occasionally win. We don't object to reformism because it advocates reforms, but because it has such a sorry record for obtaining them. Paradoxically, i would declare that reformism is not the way to win reforms.Meanigful, social gains can only be won through the militant collective action of working people and mass movements. Without such pressure from below, the actions of well-intentioned reformers is basically toothless. Also there is a danger that in the absence of this revolutionary politics, the aim of socialism would be sacrificed to the strategy of "moderation".I would also argue that if people share the goals for making a better world, they should allow the loudest and be the most recognised voices to be the ones that denounce the continuation of our oppressive, repressive system rather than others, the so-called pragmatists and realists who suggest collaboration and accommodation. In other words, those who point the need for revolutionary change shouldn't be asked to be silent and take a back-seat in case they cause offence or fear.The effect of demanding everything would be that the ruling class will let bigger crumbs to fall from their table, they will offer larger slices of the pie to divert and disarm the protest and resistance.I know some members may recognise the flaws in what i say…the ease we can be drawn into the swamp to sink into the morass without a trace. But to paraphrase Luxemburg "the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest political party."2nd warning:1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
When Andrew Neil asked the same sort of question, i thought Howard did well by turning it into a positive thing and that he welcomed the existence of all those other "socialist" parties.But this got me thinking about if we are considering a mega public event for the future, we should hire a venue like Conway Hall and with the authority and legitimacy as the "oldest" existing socialist party, the undeniable "grandfathers" of the movement, so to speak, and confident of the validity of our own case, we invite every socialist/left party, and i do mean the lot of them, to a hustings-style forum.Each party representative given 5/10 minutes to set out their key points (the speaking order picked by lot) and then a lengthy Q and A from the audience, even breaking for lunch and dinner and resuming later in the afternoon and evening to make it a truly all-day affair (maybe that is being overly ambitious, we do have a problem with our own members nodding off).Perhaps get Russel Brand (or even Andrew Neil but i'd opt for Charlotte Church , myself) to chair as the neutral…or all sharing the task switching at the refreshment intervals), if they are willing to do so at no-fee/no expenses.Perhaps we can title it …"The War of the Words, The Battle of Ideas" and present it as a gladiatorial arena of Britain's socialist parties fighting it out (people love a political blood-bath, metaphorically speaking) …But i'm sure other members have better suggestions on actual presentation.The whole thing videoed by ourselves. We may well see the ridiculousness of the Trotskyists arguing obscure theory to differentiate themselves from one another and others trying to score debating points over one another for the "right" to lead the working class.We may even uncover common areas of agreement with some groups on what socialism means.I see a number of advantages for ourselves because of our content and more importantly in how we approach and treat political opposition to capitalism.As organisers , of course, we get the advantage of the best pitch for our lit-table and the best place to view of our banners…We're paying the rent and for the advertising, after all. Fair's fair.Even the proposal itself and the issuing of invitations in a way that draws attention to the socialist principles we support…debate and democracy and potential interest it may arouse may well will be a success in publicity and propaganda on its own for us even if nothing else works out and it never ever materialised , at least, in the original concept Perhaps it is all a bit too grand for the campaigns committee to organise on its own without added volunteers.Anyways, i'm told i never come up with anything constructive and only offer gloom and doom …so here is one thing i think may well accomplish something for us, if we got the will to carry it out. Maybe someone else through the branches can officially propose or submit the idea to the EC and/or Campaigns.
As someone so erudite, you are often careless with your language, Stuart."your own definition of reformism – a very model of arbitrariness!" – synomyns being capricious , whimsical, random, chance etc etcYou are well acquainted with the 19th century roots of the party within the social democratic traditions of the time and well aware that the policies and principles of the party were determined by their specific experience and situations encountered. The reformism and our hostility clause too were not arbitary but resulted from a reaction of the then political practices of our "mother" organisation that gave birth to us. They were clear upon its usage and application and we were clear upon our denounciation of it. To simply dismiss the SPGB ideas on reforms as arbitary won't lead to any real understanding why they were adopted and i don't think we can move forward if we don't take into consideraation if any of those conditions still apply today.Certainly the term has shifted in importance and meaning. The socialists of the SLP and the SPA debated over them but in a totally different context and the intent for both was very different than, say, a Trotskyist and Labourite debate today is. It is not merely a difference in emphasis but about what role reforms play. Simply because the original discussion is no longer discussed, does not lead automatically to the conclusion that an answer was provided and no more is to be said about it, that instead we should follow the loudest and most vocal – the prevailing orthodoxy. We have always differentiated between reformism and reforms. I think we should explore the relationship between the two in regards of organisation and campaigning and importantly politcally as a form of self-defence, class self-sufficiency, as a means of propaganda towards a new type of society, as a sort of re-confirmation of the practicality of socialism. This also involves questioning the relationship between protest and parliament.We should return to the debate in depth and discover if there is indeed still some validity to our current position, or whether it should be modified to fit different setting, or even jettisoned as you suggest as superflous. But it is something i have no intention upon taking hasty decisions about and i would guard such impetuousity.When the party moves, it must take all its members with it – or did the Socialist Studies "rebellion" and expulsion teach no lesson.
This recently added video of a talk by WSPUS member, Karla Rab, may be of interest to some participants of this thread …(and a bit about language, too)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8V4uV0_NxE
Just so it doesn't go unnoticed, it is interesting that both video-talks linked to on the other thread were under the auspices of an organisation called People for Democratic Revolution, an organisation that are trying to present another approach of ditching the words socialism and communism as been referred as a possible strategy here. It also goes some way of incorporating Vin's concerns that revolution and the struggle against the ruling class are not fully addressed. It appears to be associated with New Democracy website and John Spritzler who some have criticised as being prone to various conspiracy theories but again there is a considerable overlap on core ideas. http://www.pdrboston.org/#!our-mission/ci9h
It is interesting that both talks were under the auspices of an organisation called People for Democratic Revolution, an organisation related to the other thread in that they are trying to present another approach of ditching the words socialism and communism.
Charlotte Church explains her protesthttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/12/charlotte-church-prosecco-socialist-protest-peoples-assembly-cardiff
Quote:renewed his commitment to what really matters and he had long been arguing for – ie, compassionate action and building for long-term, genuine political and social change. Well, what's wrong with that? My feelings exactly.Quote:Seems he will be returning to single issues and social activism which for all my previous scepticism (see debate on Weekly Worker with SW) i am now wondering how we ourselves can interact more positvely with, without following the Left's transgressions of manipulation by their intervention and by not compromising our own anti-reformism. I'm wondering if out supportive attitudes towards trade unions can somehow be adapted and modified to relate to the many campaigns for social justice that exist from local to worldwide levels.I'm not sure you are classing that comment as a misrepresentation. I thought it was myself re-evaluating where i stand , Stuart.
Millionaire capitalist, Alan Sugar, resigns from the Labour Party because it is too left-wing and anti-businesshttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/11/alan-sugar-resigns-from-labour-party-over-shift-to-left“I intend to continue in the House of Lords, representing the interests of business and enterprise in the UK."…Note not represent the people of Britain and in all honestly says it like it is…he is capitalism's representative.
Quote:If the MFP and Ray Carr only disagree with us on language or on some issue of approach rather than principle, the solution is obvious: join us !ALB, do we not change, do we not make any concessions or compromises…Or do we claim the mantle of being perfect?…If they believe our language is a problem, do we accept that it is true and try to make it different?In fact we have endeavoured to do just that with Capitalism and Kids Stuff which has been our most ambitious and most successful venture. MFP and others may well rightly ask why we did not continue with that tack.But can they convince us that such a change does make a difference in how we are perceived? What is the empirical evidence that dropping our socialist lexicon draws folk? Despite how we describe ourselves on the tin, won't our enemies label us socialists anyways. Unlike Zeitgeist , we cannot deny the charge and they only do so out of actual ignorance of what socialism is.Personally i see more is to be gained by describing ourselves as eco-socialists in todays political climate of climate change …and …adding an adjective to qualify our socialism is something we regularly do…"real" socialism…"genuine" socialism……"Marxian" socialism."free access" socialism .."Marxian" socilism…and of course "World" socialism so why not adopt the term eco-socialism more…lets hijack it from its mis-users…
Quote:the biggest difference between WSM and MFP is that MFP is more focused on describing and promoting the vision, rather than promoting an analysis of society.An analysis of society explains the whys which people will demand us to answer at some point…why should we have change…why is no money a better way…why is money used now…An analysis of society explains the whys. Promoting the vision i think can bear fruit when we are addressing individuals and challenging the myths of human nature being a hinderance. We can show the vision and the benefits for individuals and Marx often did this in his writings …how societal change creates the conditions for individual fulfilment. So describing a new type of society is not utopian but explains why it creates change in our individual behaviour and our individual relationships with one another. I always though Murray Bookchin and others understood better than us how capitalism reinforces such things as hierarchies and all the "isms" sexism, racism etc and they managed to convey that liberation from those through an economic transformation. I am well known on the forum for stating let a thousand flowers bloom, for urging diversity and variety in our message. Rather than simply say …join us…and so become just like us,…indistinguishable from us …Is there not a way we can acknowledge shared positions, shared goals and shared visions…and help one another to grow and expand and spread, separate but together. I earlier talked about the unnecessary duplication of effort…but is that always going to be a consequence of being different organisations…or do each concentrate on thier individual strengths… find the right soil for growth…and why should we not help add the fertiliser for another if it suits another rather than our own way…as long as it still on a journey heading the same way as ourselves. I have purposefullyand deliberately referred to New Zealand situation… I have heard said by some members if a stronger more effective socialist party emerged, they would join it ..it is the reasoning behind ALB saying MFP should join us, we after all are the more soild organisationIn NZ i hazard to guess that ALB's proposal that MFP join the SPGB would be reversed…the WSPNZ would be better being part of the MFP of NZ since they too may be still small but are more successful and with the most promise. Which raises other questions – Would we countenance actually presenting our NZ comrades with that suggestion for their consideration. …Would we still accept such a merged group to remain acceptable as a companion party. I recall…(and it was probably to avoid political persecution) that Gambian group was callred the Movement for Free Access (or something like that) so being named a socialist party isn't a requisite to being part of the WSM, is my point. Anyways, i hope the above gives food for thought to members and non-members…and i won't take umbrage at being shown how wrong i am. I simply exploring options and raising discussion…LBird will hate it …but like a scientist offering a hypothesis to be either proved as true or false (And to get to a personal bone of contention, ALB, about "joining us"…why the fuck have some of our own members failed, nay, refused, to join us on this forum and stuck to a redundant one…DUH…hardly an example of lead by example…)
I'm sure the split in the long term will be beneficial, and you are certainly well aware of our own opposition to Posive Money (who we call currency cranks) and their exit eases many problems that would have arisen by their presence in the MFP. So you'd like this stronger relationship to be complementary, each organisation concentrating on what it considers to be its strengths, co-operating but not losing one anothers distinct identities. How close is your connection and communication with the New Zealand grouping? Do you know if the New Zealand has had any dealings with our WSPNZ? They seem more successful than our companion party in gaining coverage. Perhaps being both smaller they may be more suited to future collaboration.
