[ALB]

alanjjohnston wrote:

i have already raised this option that we ignore Corbyn completely ….

I'm sure nobody in the jungles of Thailand has heard of or cares about Corbyn but it's not an option here in Britain and shouldn't be. In fact, can't be. Even usually non-political people here are talking about him. 

[ALB]

This from a thread publicising a meeting in Brighton on 15 September:

gnome wrote:

In addition, the tactics of the likes of Naomi Klein, Caroline Lucas and Derek Wall, along with special reference to the present Corbynmania phenomenon, will be ruthlessly exposed and dissected…

Why, Gnome, up the ante in the discussion here by introducing your approach into publicity for a public meeting?  What you say here is going to happen at the meeting doesn't seem the best way to win over people in an area which has Britain's only Green Party MP. Much better to concede that the likes of Klein and Lucas are asking the right questions but providing the wrong answers or even that they are making some good proposals but that  these won't be able to be implemented unless we get socialism (the approach we took towards the Green candidate in Oxford West in the general election) than to "ruthlessly expose" them in an in-your-face confrontational way.. That type of aggressive, macho approach won't go down in Green circles (and, presumably, the hope is that some people who may well have voted Green will turn up). It will just put people off.Incidentally, we will know by then whether or not Corbyn has been elected Leader of the Labour Party which, if he has, will have interesting political implications which will inevitably come up at the meeting.

[ALB]

Before engaging Derek Wall people should know where he is coming from. As has been pointed out, he spoke at one of our summer schools and knows the party and its position well. Even though he is in the Green Party he stands for socialism/communism in our sense and is well-versed in Marxism. His criticism of us has always been that we don't do anything except engage in so-called "abstract propagandism" for socialism though at one time he was prepared to recognise that this was useful since nobody else was doing it.This time he seems to have gone completely overboard for Jeremy Corbyn:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-41a3-A-win-for-Jeremy-would-benefit-the-entire-left-not-just-Labour#.VerrD30WNdgSo it looks as if he would still attack us even for simply arguing that Corbyn is a reformist (as he is) without the Marmite pot incident.Incidentally, SP, to be fair our tweets do attack Tories and Ukippers too. See (you don't have to be a signed up as a tweeter to look at it):http://twitter.com/OfficialSPGB

[ALB]

That's a red herring, not to say a kneejerk. Nobody is saying that we are not opposed to Corbyn or the Labour Party. That's not the issue. It's about the way and tone in which we express this opposition.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Socialists are therefore hostile, not in the sense of committing violent acts against other parties or their members, but to the ideas of those parties which support capitalism.

Gnome, Where does this come from?

These words appear elsewhere on this site (explanation of Clause 7 of the Declaration of Principles):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

SOYMB blog will remove the relevant blog-post if instructed to do so by today's EC meeting.

There is nothing wrong with the blog reproducing the good statement from the media committee or the Private Eye article. The objection is to it reproducing the Marmite thing in the middle of a controversy about it, i.e that's all that would need to be removed if it's decided to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Not saying I agree with either image but I've found the Socialist Standard from October 1979 front cover used the Leninism: 57 varieties image (the Solidarity pamphlet is possibly dated 1972 and I'm not certain uses it anyway)

This is a brilliant, original SPGB production which others have copied, not the other way round.

[ALB]

Now, as a result of the blog item, it's been re-tweeted (scroll down):https://twitter.com/officialspgbPeople will think we're proud of it and that we are indeed waging a "ferocious media campaign" against Corbyn.Why don't members think before they shoot?

[ALB]

Just read in the papers that in the television debate last night between the 4 candidates Corbyn said he was in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis.  I'm sure there will be some members who won't consider that a "bs policy".

[ALB]

Why are members still distributing this stupid and damaging marmite thing when they know that it has caused damage and is criticised by members and could be disavowed?http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/private-eye-and-spgb.htmlIt doesn't express the Party case properly and is not even factually correct (are we opposed to Corbyn's policy of opposing and repealing anti-trade union laws? Are we against his anti-war stance? Are these "bs policies"?). Reproducing it on our blog is giving it wider distribution than originally and so credence to the false Private Eye allegation that we are engaged in "a ferocious media campaign" against Corbyn.Is it too late to take it down?

[ALB]

Here is Derek Wall speaking only 3 years ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2P7zXktn3gSometimes we're our worst enemy.

[ALB]

I think the distinction is more between "instrumental" and "expressive" action, as the late comrade Jack Bradley used to insist. Here's a definition of the two:

Quote:

Instrumental action refers to action as an attempt to influence the social and political environment; expressive action refers to action as an expression of people's views.

And an article illustrating the difference:http://beautifultrouble.org/theory/expressive-and-instrumental-actions/We've a tendency to unconsciously go for "expressive action". Which is conforting for us but not so effective in getting our ideas across to others.

[ALB]

In the Files section of Spintcom athttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/filesbut you need to a signed up to spintcom and signed in.

[ALB]

Don't know how to do or copy a screen grab but here's what the Private Eye piece says:

Quote:

IN THE hysteria provoked by the supposed far-left infiltration of the eternal Labour leadership contest, one sect of hardline pamphlet-pushers is staying resolutely on its street corner.The 300-strong Socialist Party of Great Britain has launched a ferocious media offensive against Jeremy Corbyn, accusing him of being a capitalist shill keen to implement a "staid, unradical government" and Photoshopping his head on to ajar of Marmite "rich in BS policies – 100 percent capitalism".Despite the revolutionaries' complaints that the Tory press's bogeyman is "just Harold Wilson warmed up", could the Clapham-based outfit have ulterior motives? Despite the party pushing for the abolition of banks and money, London's property boom saw the value of its HQ almost double between 2013 and 2014 to £900,000 – with cash reserves taking its total wealth to just under £ 1.3m. Its media spokesman protests: "We are not a charity, we are not giving it away to the poor, we are using it to propagate the case for socialism."God forbid a politician comes along who wants to do something about the housing crisis and unearned income…

Not sure we can complain really as it's a bit of a case of the biter bit. We use a Private Eye type front cover and they publish a Private Eye type piece on us.

[ALB]

I have to confess that Vin, SP and JDW have been proved right. Some idiot sent this from our twitter account on 16 August:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMh5m2wWgAAxURh.jpgIt's been picked up by Private Eye who have replied in kind on p. 9 of this fortnight's issue.The EC needs to disavow it on Saturday but the damage has been done.

[Author]

Posts