[ALB]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen.

Providing of course that humanity doesn't destroy itself in the meantime…

I doubt humanity will destroy itself. If some strong (and unstable) ruler presses the nuclear button there'll still be some survivors, and after that socialism will (hopefully) be seen as the only way out.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

ALB wrote:

"Yes."

Is there any way to prove this?

I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion as to what "prove" means, but the whole of the past evolution of human society points in this direction. Why would it stop now, at capitalism?

Sympo wrote:

Why can't something be delayed forever? I mean, most people haven't become socialists yet.

Ah yes, the old one about is socialism inevitable, i.e. is it inevitable that humanity will come to want socialism? Personally, I think it is. Humans are problem-solving animals and socialism, as the common ownership of the world's natural and industrial resources, is objectively the only framework within which the problems thrown up by capitalism can be solved. Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen. All I know is that, by propagating that socialism is the solution, we are capable of speeding this up.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

Isn't it a type of historical determinism to suggest that history must go forward?

Yes.

Sympo wrote:

In what way is apartheid an example of politics not being able to stop something?

Apartheid impeded the normal development of capitalism in South Africa by reserving certain jobs for certain population groups and by segregating population groups. This was against the logic of capitalism which is colour blind and is only interested in exploiting labour-power and is not interested in the characteristics of its bearers. Apartheid went against this logic. It tried to ignore this but couldn't stop the logic of capitalism getting its way in the end. It did, though, delay this for over 40 years.

[ALB]

The proposition of the materialist conception of history (in its Marxist Form) is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. All political action, as the exercise of political power, can do is slow down or speed up the direction determined by economic conditions. Engels goes into this in detail in the chapters on "force theory" in Anti-duehring. A recent example of politics slowing down the direction but not being able to reverse or stop it would be apartheid in South Africa. A future example of speeding it up will be the Socialist use of political power to finish off capitalism. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised. As the man said, people make history but not out of a cloth of their own choosing.

[ALB]

We aim to have a stall and leaflets in London at this eventhttp://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/not_one_day_more_toriesout_national_demonstration

Quote:

Assemble 12pm, Saturday 1 July 2017 BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London W1A 1AAMarch to Parliament Square

Watch the World Socialist Movement section for details.

[ALB]

For psephological trainspotters:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40331136The telephone box must be where our voters in London gathered.

[ALB]

Part 3 of the translation has now appeared:http://sapiencia.eu/la-politica-del-marques-de-sade-3/

[ALB]

The comrade states his position here:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/18098 It both answers Sympo's question and shows Vin's assumption to have been mistaken.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.

It is the issue. Nowhere is it suggested that the  comrade   posted  'Vote Labour' etc. We are talking about sharing or liking a comment posted by another party or Momentum.  As an example: Oxfam is not a revolutionary organisation it believes capitalism can work, but we all cut and past, share and like its statistics. It doesn't mean we support reformism.  We are a very small party and most nay ALL research is carried out by non SPGB members.  Much of what is said on twitter and Facebook relating to politics is the result of research by a non SPGB member. It is crazy to expel a member for agreeing with the result of a non SPGB member's research.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            For the sake of openess and fairness can we see the content of the offending posts? Do they say VOTE LABOUR!. I think not, so we should not cloud the issue.                                                                                                                                                                                                        

I thought the allegation was precisely encouraging a vote for Labour via a "like". It would as you say be crazy to charge someone merely for "liking" any comment by an opposing political organisation.For the record a member expelled by a branch has the right to appeal to conference.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

What was the nature of the posts that the expelled SPGB member shared? Were they saying something in the likes of "Vote Labour" or was it something like "The Tory's are bad"?I'm not a member and have no say in this matter but it would perhaps be good if people could find out what the posts actually said?

Sympo is right. The issue is not THAT members "like" something. It is WHAT they "like". As he says, there is a difference between "liking" some criticism, from whatever quarter, of capitalism, the Tories or Labour,  and liking a post saying "VOTE LABOUR" or "JEREMY FOR PRIME MINISTER".Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.

[ALB]

It seems that we are not the only party having to deal with (or not) comments on social media. This from the Minutes of the June Meeting of the EC of the WSP (India):

Quote:

Matters Arising: The EC asks comrade Tabrez Julaha Ajlaf to adhere to our OBJECT and DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, MANIFESTO and RULES while uploading or posting comments on the social media. He must restrain himself from upholding and giving random confused supports to violence, nationalism, religion, feminism, and other anti-socialist ideas in a mess. – AGREED

[ALB]

The election result has revived talk about this again, with Big Business and their voices in Parliament and the media saying the UK should stay in the customs union and even join the European Economic Area (EU + Norway, etc).Now it's the Brexshitters who are the moaners.Interesting side show.

[ALB]

I'm waiting for our feathered friend joining the fray so we can witness the battle of the hobby horses.

[ALB]

Yes, it would have been just one of the following postcode offices:

Quote:

E2 700,N1 3500,
N4 8000,
N5 12600,
N7 14100,
N16 1500,
N19 16500,
NW5 300

Hopefully E2 or NW5 (or even N16) !

[ALB]

I stll think election time is a good time to argue our case as it's a time when people read and discuss politics more. You get a better chance to present your case if you actually have a candidate because that gives you some standing (arguing without a candidate is not even half as effective). But we need to choose where we contest better in order to avoid getting a really derisory vote and becoming a laughing stock. Historically, we have always fared better, in terms of votes, in safe Labour seats. Maybe we should stick to that at general elections. Local elections are different as they cost nothing and are a focus for local activity. So, for a different reason, are regional elections, as in Scotland, Wales and London. The areas covered are much larger and the absolute number of votes is more even if the percentage is the same. Pity Brexshit is going to mean no more elections to the European Parliament.

[Author]

Posts