[ALB]

In his SF book The Stone Canal, Ken Macleod imagines (p. 175)  just such a scenario:

Quote:

The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers' Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from the smaller parties. Neutrality was affirmed.

I can't remember whether the fall of the government was a good thing or a bad thing. Macleod is familiar with us and may have included this because he was aware of the sort of discussion we are having now.

[ALB]

This discussion has been going on in the Party since at least 1911:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reforms

Quote:

Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the "Social Problem," the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest."

Other members took a different view:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League

Quote:

In February 1910 a letter from "W.B. (Upton Park)" was sent to the Socialist Standard asking,“What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?”The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working-class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Party's Declaration of Principles. The Standard’s reply on the matter, backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated thateach issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democraticallyThis did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.

[ALB]

There is a difference between saying that capitalism can't be reformed to work to the benefit the working class (your, valid, point) and saying that some reforms can be obtained even if only on a temporary basis as long as they dont "threaten capital's ability to expand itself". There are even some reforms that benefit workers that actually do help capital's ability to expand itself, e.g. education and health provisions. It's not a black and white situation. But, as Robbo has pointed out, this is not a case for Socialists advocating any eform measures (but might be for a Socialist MP or councillor voting for some). .

[ALB]

Four turned out to run a stall and distribute leaflets to the mainly health service trade unionist protestors. About £15 worth of pamphlets sold and hundreds of general introductory leaflets given out. Interesting to note from its leaflet that SPEW is now calling itself "Socialist Party formerly Militant" which should help dissipate the confusion but it didn't stop some of their out-of-London members thinking our stall was theirs.

[ALB]

So youse two wanted to dissolve the constituent assembly!  What would be worrying would be a Party member ending up as neither a menshevik internationalist nor an anarchist     

[ALB]

In 2003 a pilot scheme for electronic voting took place in ten councils, including Norwich. At the time we wrote to the authorities protesting that there was no provision to not vote for any of the candidates. The correspondence must be somewhere at Head Office. In any event, the upshot was that e-voting was not proceded with.Here's an extract from amusing account of how a comrade in Australia struggled with electronic voting with no option to not to vote for anyone  and where voting is compulsory:

Quote:

This informal voter subsequently wrote to the Federal Electoral Commissioner of the AEC asking what provision was there, in the Federal Electoral Act Regulations pertaining to electronic voting, for a deliberate informal vote. I will not bore the reader by dwelling on the reply I received from the Electoral Commissar, suffice to say that like a non-vote, it was a non-answer; however the last paragraph of the letter contains an eye opener for it says – that if an elector made an informal vote by not selecting any candidates or by not allocating preferences to all candidates, then the electronic voting system alerts the elector that the necessary number of selections have not been made. So potential informalites be warned that unless you express a vote for a candidate on the electronic device, you will be stuck in a quarrel with a machine telling you that 'your vote is invalid, please try again'. (No doubt after three attempts the Polling Station electronic device will start flashing a light to alert Electoral Office Rottweilers to the fact that there is an un-Australian in their midst and they should take appropriate action!).

That's the point at which you walk away.

[ALB]

I came out as a "Menshevik Internationalist", i.e, a Menshevik opposed to Russiam participation in WWi. I thought I might be.

[ALB]

We've had this doscussion before. If there's is no provision to not vote for any of the parties or candidates, then the only alternative is to "spoil" the voting machine, i.e., start the process of voting and walk away without completing it.  The polling clerk will then have to do something before anyone else can use that machine. I can add that when I voted in Belgium once they did have a provision to cast a blank vote (and to do that in either French or Dutch).

[ALB]

And vice versa. That the critique of religion led to a critique of the social conditions that gave rise to religion and that therefore mere anti-religious argumentation (atheism) would not get rid of it as long as the social conditions that gave rise to it persisted.

[ALB]

The young, pre-socialist Marx was more openly opposed to religion than later. In fact, he came to socialism/communism via atheism.

[ALB]

When asked, as a candidate, about cycles lanes, what I have replied is something like "nothing against it, but only vote Socialist if you want socialism, not merely more cycle lanes (or whatever)" (though, as a car driver, that's not really what I wanted to reply )

[ALB]

From "anarcho-communism in one (or two) cantons" to trade on a wider scale:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-northeast-idUSKBN16A0K2?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29&&rpc=401I think the administration there also imposes conscription, which is not very anarchist. Still, they don't seem to want to impose any particular religious practice on people and to be against discriminating against women.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Following the discussion elsewhere, what is the party distinction between abstentionism, electoralism and the party approach

This is how wikipedia defines "abstentionism":

Quote:

Abstentionism is standing for election to a deliberative assembly while refusing to take up any seats won or otherwise participate in the assembly's business. Abstentionism differs from an election boycott in that abstentionists participate in the election itself.

I'm not sure this reflects actual current usage as the "election boycott", as practised by "left communists" and anarchists, is also called "abstentionism" even by them. The Conference motion is only advocating abstentionism in the first sense.In laying down that any elected councillor or MP should also not take their salary the motion is going beyond the "Sinn Fein" tactic in that the SF members of the Westminister Parliament do take money for offices, etc there. Which is sensible. As has been pointed out, that's what any elected Socialist should do: take the money and give it to the Party. I would have thought that this was obvious.Although this appears to be a question of abstract political theory speculating about what we should or should not do in the future (which is not up to us anyway) it does have a practical aspect. About how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question", e.g. are you in favour of a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue? The motion gets round this by effectively saying "that's not what we're about". But it would also give the impression that we are not concerned about more important questions that affect workers, such as twc's detriments that can be temporarily lessened.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”.  At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.

I can go along with that, but not with not voting in favour of some of these temporarily lessened detriments if put before a local council or national parliament. By others of course. Socialist MPs wouldn't propose anything, nor seek election on the basis of obtaining a few temporarily lessened benefits.

[ALB]

Beyond me but what do our Audio Visual with their whiteboards think?Actually, I quite like the idea of  "the world turned upside down".

[Author]

Posts