alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Or Workers' Councils could be defined to encompass workplaces and neighbourhoods on a geographical basis" We have also forgotten to mention Industrial Unions, either as contemplated by the IWW or the SLP as models for the future and who have their proponents. The IWW did re-define their IUs to include non-workers such as the creation of their Household Service IU680. Three-way…it might be four-way? I too have cited in debates on Libcom the fact that the butcher Gustav Noske to dissuade revolution got himself elected as the head of a workers council as evidence of the relative lack of political maturity and the confusion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Noske#German_revolution_and_civil_war
LBird i think you are expecting too much of the SPGB “to fill in the blanks” by speculating about the future and circumstances we actually have no idea that may exist. We have formulated our objectives on the conditions that prevail today and have clearly said what we believe the situation is “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.” We then elaborated a fuller explanation saying “It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in … Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.” From our Aims and Declaration web-page http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles Today it is the State that maintains effective control over arms. Workers Councils do not presently exist, nor is there a guarantee that they will indeed be the organs of working class rule although many think it is likely yet others will argue that workers councils would be sectional while neighbourhood assemblies would be more communal and inclusive so it is possible that power-sharing will be at least three-way. Literally speaking those who will actually control the arms are the ones who will be called upon to use them – and again it is mere hypothesising about how soldiers councils will be organised and the relationship with the wider population. Whether the SPGB have a “twintrack strategy”of being elected to both parliament and any emerging Workers’ Councils come back to us when that is an option. I am sure it will be getting debated and discussed at the time as it grows into a genuine possibility. Standing for parliamnetary elections right now concerns us more than future elections to a phantom structure. I’m always surprised as some criticisms of the SPGB when we are often accused of not basing our policy on real existing social realities and when we do, we are damned for not proposing alternatives that are just conjecture about the future. You also know enough about our case to understand that the Socialist Party has no intention of attempting to raise itself up new saviors or imposing a few intellectuals upon the workers or our organisation as leaders. If the working class choose one means over another and it remains democratic so be it – we will be there, involved and participating. In the words of the immortal Doris Day and the Scottish national team’s Tartan Army, “Whatever shall be, shall be”
fat balding, ginger headed Scottish arse"…tsk, tsk, i'm not sure how many isms you have upset with that description.
According to Matt on Spopen, it seems like Owen Jones has recommended one of Socialist Party blog posts. .His Twitter feed provides a link. In reply to someone who says,"It's stretching it a bit to suggest that Marx anticipated a parliamentary road to socialism @OwenJones84. Can we have the reference please?"He just says, "Read This" and links tohttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/marx-and-engels-on-power-of-vote.html
I'm the balance – some seem to have wet dreams over RB – i am the wet blanket. But to be a balance in case no-one is aware of the 2008 beardless Paxman-beardless Brand interview here is a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYM7SzJMKnshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NCDovAWB8
That intro is certainly stirring stuff and the shout of "Power to the People" from the rooftops. The intro to other clips show the cliched che-guevara t-shirt. Rest of the show had its humourous moments taking the piss out of the stereotype Leftists. Comedy has always produced politics. Even Groucho Marx had his marxist moment. See this video clip. http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/09/marx-and-wage-slavery.html?q=wage+slavery Al Lewis – Grandpa from The Munsters show, was a bit of a radical standing for the Green Party in New York and mustering over 50,000 votes. This speech of his is worth posting, given a month after 9/11 "I may offend some people but Mrs. Lewis' son doesn't care! Doesn't care! What happened on September 11th was inevitable. Inevitable! Inevitable! It was horrific. Approximately five thousand lives were lost. Don't get angry with me. Just listen to the message. Were those lives more valuable than those school children who died of shrapnel in an action that was directed, promoted and paid for by the US government? Were the lives on September 11th more valuable than the … hundred thousand people who were killed in Guatemala? In Nicaragua? You want me to go down the list in killing? Was that horrific? Was that terror? And you want to talk about terror? Again, I don't care if you are angry. As we can now see, from the Freedom of Information acts – the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terror! There was no military objective involved … One other thing. September 11th happened. The initial, 'Let's bomb them into the stone age.' 'Let's wipe them out.' 'Let's kill them.' Americans suffer from short or long term memory loss … Baruch Goldstein. You know who he was? He was an Israeli captain who went in on a Friday in the mosque and machine gunned them with an automatic rifle and killed them. Did any of you … raise the human cry, 'Let's bomb them into the stone age?' Were their lives less valuable than those at the World Trade Center … if you go now – NOW – to Israel there is a memorial to Baruch Goldstein! I want to ask you something. There were nineteen people involved in the September 11th attacks… that airplane was a bomb because of the high-octane gasoline. It was a flying bomb. Those nineteen men. What would Americans do if some place in the Middle East they erected a monument to them? Who says that our lives are more valuable than his or hers? Where is it written? Where? Where is it written?" Now that was real honest emotion. Real anger. http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/6/extra_grandpa_al_lewis_speaks_at i hope your download attempts is better than mine, though.
SP, i think Matt was saying that the break-down in communications with a member may not have been the party's fault and certainly not intended or part of of approach to out-the-way members, rather than being merely dismissive. Simple thing of not informing the party of a change of address , or not renewing a re-direction of mail with the post office will result in a break-down. I have no idea if the ex-comrades mail was returned as not known or moved away but i am sure HO would responded to unopened returned mailIt takes two to talk. He, however, reminds us that we spend a lot of resources and expend a lot of energy in maintaining contact. Often several letters are sent out to inactive members by Central Branch. Branches go out of their way to maintain some sort of contact with out of the way members, at least talking for Edinburgh, Matt's branch) and Glasgow (his ex-branch). The party is frequently criticised for keeping "phantom" members on its books. If you recall, one branch lapsed a elderly member who suffered seriously from senile dementia and this led to quite an ado and resulted in a change of procedure in such cases.BTW, Matt, your picture looks nothing like you, not near enough grumpy enough
As others see us:-"There was no sense of cohesion, solidarity or even basic comradeship in the SPGB. Members can literally say and do as much or as little as they like. Most pay no dues and are completely inactive. Those who engage are fractious and seem personally antagonisticI still subscribe to the Socialist Standard but, after reading, it goes into the council recycling. It’s pretty transient and irrelevant. "http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/984/letters
panpsychism, real naturalism, realism and materialism. http://www.countercurrents.org/riggins311013.htm
Oh why, not hung for a sheep rather than a lamb…thankfully no 3 limit post here. Dick Gaughan's Revolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAxVc6Fm21k
And while i am at it – what about this?1988, my how the yars fly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZbvi6Tj6E The song received heavy radio play in Tunisia in 2011 during the Tunisian revolution.
No revolutionary movement was ever yet caused by propaganda alone. Conditions make revolutions. Conditions have caused, and are causing, an tremendous change in the attitude of the people. Brand is one of the effects of this change. Yes, i agree with admice – it was the economic meltdown that created a space for ourselves to fill but Occupy, Indigados, the Arab Spring, the Brasil protests and now Brand, has filled a vacuum. It is leaves us only to critique what they are doing. What we have to do is make sure he does NOT become the figurehead or the spokes-person of the revolution. Ozy."have we ever heard opinions like his expressed in such an earnest way on telly before"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a2Mqrsv9fY
At the risk of derailing the thread . “The BBC is part of a “conspiracy” preventing the “radical changes” needed to UK democracy, Greg Dyke the corporation’s former director general has said.The BBC is part of a “conspiracy” preventing the “radical changes” needed to UK democracy…He wanted a commission to look into the “whole political system”. But he said: “I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it…I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly – the Labour cabinet – who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC. Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don’t want anything to change. It’s not in their interests.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8265628.stm Now it is simply a matter of deciding if Jeremy Paxman is part of the conspiracy i agree with you that we should strike when the iron is hot and make the most of the opportunity. There is no dispute about that. But on the long term, we should realise that Brand may well be a flash in the pan and we need to build our propaganda on something much more sustainable.
Two times in nearly ten years…Is that sufficient exposure to a thinker who is very clearly articulate? I wonder if you can tell me the number of Tony Blair’s articles/interviews the Guardian has given to him and then say there is not an unspoken agenda by the paper to rehabilitate him and restore his credibility. Can’t be for boosting the circulation….but i conspire… True there is no proof of a plot by the BBC. Journalist Jonathan Cook also tries to read into the BBC motives.“we are witnessing the media in a moment of profound crisis and they have no choice but to adopt new strategies to deal with that crisis, including ones that may prove clumsy in terms of their own interests. As public discontent mounts, especially as expressed through new media, the traditional corporate media have to respond. Certainly, they would prefer to coopt the message of popular revolutionaries like Brand, both to strengthen their own brand (sic) image and to dilute revolutionary fervour.” But he concedes it is a gamble by the BBC that could backfire. http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-10-30/russell-brand-can-he-avoid-being-coopted/ In an earlier article, Cook writes “Brand’s problem, nonetheless, is that he risks being incorporated (sic) into the status quo. He may have outraged GQ, government ministers and their sponsors, but they are easily outraged. Brand has become the chic comedy-rebel of our era, the dissident brand (sic) the Guardian loves to put on its front page. This may bring his message to millions but at the same time, I fear, it dissipates its power to effect change.” http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-09-14/russell-brand-half-way-to-subversion/
