ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What Ian Bone says should not be interpreted too literally. When he says "Bash the Rich" he does really mean that they should be hit or beaten. He's just being provocative. If he really meant it he would be in trouble in this country (UK) too for incitement to violence or something. But when you say "socialism" what do you mean by it? A world without frontiers or states where the Earth resources have become the common heritage of humanity with goods and services being produced to satisfy people's needs without money or buying and selling? Where we'd all be stateless because the world would no longer be divided into states, just citizens of the world, Earthpeople.
LBird wrote:Nevertheless, I've tried to expose my underlying ideology, and where I think it takes me, on this and other issues.I know what your theory is but it doesn't seem much of a guide to action like Marxist theory is supposed to be. By the time you've worked out what to do at a "No Platform" protest the action will be all over.
LBird wrote:But the reverse is also true:"if a group decides democratically to try to impose 'No "No Platform" ' for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable".Thus, in our scenario, it makes sense for the 'No Platform' group to attend the meeting to prevent the Fascist from speaking, and for the 'No 'No Platform' ' group to simply not attend the meeting, so they by omission don't prevent……and neither 'imposes' upon the other.This is not a parallel, so the reverse isn't also true. The "No Platform" group wish to stop someone speaking. The "No to No Platform" group don't necessarily want to take action to stop the "No Platform" group from stopping the speaker. I'm not advocating fighting the SWP to allow the National Front to speak ! Just opposing their undemocratic practice and saying they shouldn't do it (because it's not in the interest of the working class or socialist movement). Actually, one of the students at the anti-Le Pen demonstration in Oxford on Thursday put it rather well:
Quote:One student in the queue, Ping Shen, 25, said: "I am here because I am very interested in free speech."She added that people had the right to protest against the talk, but she believed that the Union should be a platform for free speech.Protesting is one thing. That's an expression of opinion. Using physical force to trying to stop someone expressing a view is another.
Smurfs? What's wrong with us?According to wikipedia we live in a socialist society:
Quote:The Smurfs' community generally takes the form of a cooperative, sharing, and kind environment based on the principle that each Smurf has something he or she is good at, and thus contributes it to Smurf society as he or she can. In return, each Smurf appears to be given their necessities of life, from housing and clothes to food without using any money in exchange.LBird wrote:This doesn't really get us much further though does it?No, I'm afraid it doesn't. I'm sure that UAF and the SWP are not democratic, but I still say that even if a group decides democratically to try to impose "No Platform" for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable.
LBird wrote:In any specific vote on an issue, we're likely to be identical in our opinion, I think.Probably. I hope so.But to descend from the realms of philosophy to everyday political life, what do you think of the "No Platform" policy, and attempt practice, of some groups aimed at any group or individual who are or who are deemed by them to be "fascist" or "racist"?
I have no fear of democratic mandates. I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express as well as over what food they eat or clothes they wear. Some decisions should be taken democratically, others individually. Obviously I don't think that an individual should be able to dictate decisions on such matters either, though they can seek to change people's minds about them.Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?
Here's an anecdote from the Monument (page 137):
Quote:True, not all the Party were food reformers. Bill Read, an East London speaker, who kept a workmen's eating house, used to bellow that vegetarianism was a capitalist plot to lower labour costs by making the working class feed on grass.Today, too, not all the Party are food reformers …..
Young Master Smeet wrote:The NHS makes a good 'wedge' for socialist ideas that otherwise are hard to crowbar into debate.True, and we've used it in Oxford with a letter in this week's Oxford Times:http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/forum/letters/11770223.Revolution_needed/
TUSC may not be able to get on UK TV but they can on Russia Today:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dUJ2VVJAwFoOnce again, no mention of socialism but maybe that's a good thing since their "socialism" is state capitalism.
I think The Monument places the incident earlier than that, in 1914-15. It's detailed on pages 48-50. The membersof a branch who voted against the branch expelling an individual member were themselves expelled in a party poll. A move was then made to charge the members who had voted in the party poll not to expel those who had voted against the expulsion of those who had not voted for the original expulsion. As it could only have happened because the ballot was not secret, it would seem to make a case for secret ballots.
By "anyone" I included institutions as well as individuals. I don't think any instiution should ban the expression of views, even if it has a democratic mandate or majority backing to do so. I agree that no "lone individual" should have this right either, nor should any private association like UAF or the SWP. Nobody or no body should. On the other hand, "lone individuals" should be free to express their point of view without punishment or retribution.Actually, and no doubt this will confirm your worst fears about "liberal individualism", I think that this article in the US constitution gets it about right:
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Suitably adapted, this could apply in socialism too.What frightens me, rather, is a "totalitarian democracy" in which a majority vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed. I know you can come back and argue that a majority has first to determine that no decision can be taken "abridging the freedom of speech" and that it is by virtue of this decision that individuals can express themselves freely (as opposed to some inalienable right of individuals to free speech). I hope you do.
There was a protest meeting outside the Oxford Union building in central Oxford yesterday evening against the leader of the French Front National, Marine Le Pen, being invited to speak in a debate there.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11775436.Protesters_turn_out_ahead_of_Marine_Le_Pen_talk_at_Oxford_Union/We were there distributing our leaflets, the one saying we're standing in Oxford East and Oxford West and the one on "Identity" which denounces nationalism (text here)Meanwhile here's the publicity on the website of St. Margaret's Institute, in Polstead Road, Oxford, where Mike Foster, our candidate in Oxford West & Abingdon, has been invited to speak this Sunday evening:http://www.smi-oxford.org.uk/news/events/index.php
LBird wrote:Isn't the real issue 'who determines' what counts as a view that should be given a platform, and one that shouldn't?.No. It's about whether anyone should determine what views shall or shall not be allowed to be expressed.
