ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The nomination forms for our candidate in Lewes for East Sussex County Council, Howard Pilott, have been handed in and accepted.
Unlike the regular nuisances here Prakash does agree with the objective of a world classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. The trouble is that he seems to prioritise his code of behaviour for socialists within capitalist society telling us what we should or should not do (most of which we wouldn't dream of doing anyway). Which is annoying and puts people off. And he goes too far in what is to be shunned. Also, as has been noticed, his code assumes that only men can be socialists. Pity really that he doesn't concentrate instead on spreading the idea of socialism/communism as here:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.html
Why do you exaggerate all the time and draw invalid analogies? To say drinking is ok is not to condone "squandering" money on it. And "taking bribes" (and some other things you've mentioned such as rape) are not in the same category as drinking. Of course it is not a wise course of action for a socialist or any other worker for that matter to squander their money on drinking, gambling or drug-taking.
John Pozzi wrote:mmalcome1 wants a revolution, i.e., the forcible overthrow of the capitalist order.Oh dear. He expects us to plough through his crackpot stuff but can't be bothered to read what we say.For the record, our conception of revolution is the same as William Morris expressed in the opening lines of his pamphlet/talk How We Live and How We Might Live:
Quote:The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can't help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal beneath its harmless envelope. So we will stick to our word, which means a change of the basis of societyWhat makes you think that we, as world socialists, would be in the slight bit interested in news about setting up yet another capitalist state? You also seem rather naive as to who is behind this. You yourself say that Imperial Germany established a puppet state in Belorussia at the end of the First World Slaughter (and have the cheek to ask us to celebrate this). Similar forces are at work today, as they were in Yugoslavia and the Ukraine and look what happened there. Is that what you want? Another civil war with all the consequences for ordinary people.
What Ozy wrote about Owen Jones applies to Dan Hannan if you substitute rightist for leftist and Daily Telegraph for Guardian:
Ozymandias wrote:He's that self important little leftist prick who writes for the Guardian.West London branch, in conjunction with comrades living there and elsewhere in Surrey, is standing a candidate in Guildford in the county council elections in Surrey where in the 1980s there was a very active Party branch. Although Surrey was part of the South East Region for the 2014 Euroelections, it was the only country where we didn't arrange for Royal Mail to distribute our election manifesto, which is one reason why we will be using the wording of that manifesto. But we'll have to distribute it iurselves since there is no free postal distribution in local elections.The nomination papers for our candidate in Guildford West were handed in and accepted today.More details here:http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/election-time-again.html
The issue is not whether or not there could be a notional list of things that Socialists should or should not do, but what should be on any such list. Socialists should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, religious, etc, as your list proposes, and obviously (it's absurd to suggest they might not be) against "raping, gang raping, trafficking, killing people". The question is should the list include such matters as smoking, drinking, gambling, getting married (or spending all your money on promoting socialism).
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Bugger me, no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no sex and you've got to eat bloody broccoli, sod that for a game of soldiersActually sex is allowed as long as you pay for it. Don't know what women are supposed to do:
Quote:The PHML is NOT opposed to prostitution ; NOR does it disapprove of your visiting brothels.Prostitution is an honest and society-friendly trade. Prostitution doesn't add to the army of the poor and vulgar ; nor does it swell the band of the antisocial. Rather, on the contrary, it helps reduce both the number of the poor and vulgar and the antisocial. Visiting brothels with a view to gratifying your desire is healthier, from the perspective of the PHML, than playing with yourself.But I thought communists had to spend all their money on propagating communism…
Prakash RP wrote:Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?No, but I'm beginning to see what you're getting it and don't agree with it. It implies that socialists will be only an ascetic self-sacrificing minority. We hold that socialism (or communism, the same thing) can only come into being when a majority want it, i.e it depends on majority political action, but you are never going to get a majority to behave as you propose. Besides, getting legally married is no more necessarily "approving matrimony" than using money is approving money.
You need to spell out clearly what do you mean by "matrimony"? Is it the legal act of getting married? If that's what you mean, then you are right that it doesn't serve any purpose except in relation to the couple's property or tax status or who pays for the upkeep of their children. Since these won't be issues in socialism, where every man, woman and child will have free access to satisfy their material needs, it won't make sense in a socialist/communist society.But of course we are living in a capitalist society where such matters can't be ignored by individuals and it's up to individuals to decide how they navigate such issues, not for Socialists to tell them what to do. The State doesn't ignore these issues either as it doesn't want the responsibility of paying for the upkeep of children, "natural" or otherwise. Or do you mean "cohabiting" without the sanction of the state, as an increasing number do now? But even here the State's courts have a tendency to take this into account when sharing out property in case of separation or obligations to pay for the upkeep of any children ."Matrimony" is a contract between property owners and the courts are interpreting "cohabiting" an implicit contract too. It's capitalist private property society that makes these matters a problem. Refusing to get legally married won't make them go away.
rodmanlewis wrote:ALB wrote:In fact I'm not sure what an "addition [sic] to matrimony" might be.Bigamist? Masochist? Creature of habit?
Serial monogamist perhaps but in the sense of a series of legal arrangements? Anyway, Prakash's strictures seem to be addressed to men.
Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be.
The main subject of the debate turned out, inevitably, to be the Bolshevik coup and Lenin's distorted definition of "socialism" as state capitalism. As the Party speaker I used quotes from Second International figures to show that prior to 1917 socialism had meant a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, and that it was Lenin who introduced a false distinction between "socialism" (a state capitalism where everyone becomes a hired employee of the state) and "communism" (what socialism originally meant).Everyone condemned the parties of the Second International though Jack Conrad ended up vigorously defending making the same mistake as them of having a "minimum programme" of democratic and social reforms to be achieved within capitalism as well as a "maximum programme" of socialism (however defined), which meant that they became the prisoners of their reformist supporters and voters and one reason why they went completely reformist. He also called for the setting up of "workers' militias" but conceded that weapon training for his party's members had not yet started.The other pannellist, Robin Halpin, argued that the revolution should begin by straigntaway abolishing private property and money and the link between work and consumption. He talked about the "ontology of labour" and said that capitalism was in "terminal decline" because it couldn't cope with the replacement of living labour by robots. He was against having anything to do with the State (in fact he came across as an anarchist) and a vociferous critic of the Bolsheviks for their "coup d'Etat" and suppression of the independence of the soviets. He was billed as "translator of workers by the Exit! group". Not been able to find out much about them but apparently they are something to do with, for or against, the ideas of the German philosopher Robert Kurz, if anyone knows about them.Discussion continued afterwards in a "wine bar" which some of our members were reluctant to enter but it turned out that it did serve lager too. It's still not clear to me what the Platypus Group, whose members here all seem to be students, stand for. One thing they do favour is debate, which is a good thing.
