[ALB]

Here's another statement by Morris of what he meant. From an article in Commonweal on 19 November 1890 entitled "Where Are We Now":

Quote:

My readers will understand that in saying this I am speaking for those who are complete Socialists – or let us call them Communists. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists – who are Trades' Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what not – will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way.Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion of any thing like it? Surely not. If we look outside that glamour, that charmed atmosphere of party warfare in which we necessarily move, we shall see this clearly: that though there are a great many who believe it possible to compel their masters by some means or another to behave better to them, and though they are prepared to compel them (by so-called peaceful means, strikes and the like), all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world. When they are so prepared, then Socialism will be realised; but nothing can push it on a day in advance of that time.Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the New Order of Things.

As you say, the situation is (unfortunately) much the same today. It can also be seen why we in the SPGB like Morris.

[ALB]

Of course. "Make Socialists" is a simplification. I used it because it is a term William Morris frequently used, as in the "Statement of Principles of the Hammersmith Socialist Society" from which Birchall was quoting and which Morris drew up in 1890 after leaving the Socialist League because it had been taken over by bomb-throwing anarchists.It is an eloquent statement of the case for socialism in the sense we mean it, still worth reading today. Here's the paragraph in full that Birchall was quoting from:

Quote:

We believe then, that it should be our special aim to make Socialists, by putting before people, and especially the working-classes, the elementary truths of Socialism; since we feel sure, in the first place, that in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour, there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is, or have had opportunities of arguing on the subject with those who have at least begun to understand it; and, in the second place, we are no less sure that before any definite Socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion – the opinion of a great mass of people who are already Socialists, people who know what they want, and are prepared to accept the responsibilities of self-government, which must form a part of their claims.

[ALB]

Apparently, Brand's interview with Paxman last year sparked a debate amongst Trotskyists the other side of the world in Australia. Here's the more interesting contribution to that debate:http://left-flank.org/2013/10/31/anti-politics-elephant-room/#sthash.hVAtaewV.dpbsHere's what the SWP think of him:http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/39314/An+evening+in+Russell+Brand%E2%80%99s+disorganised+revolutionAnd SPEW:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19537/21-10-2014/russell-brand-strikes-a-chord

[ALB]

Actually it's their hobby horse too !

[ALB]

Isn't that a bit like saying that German voters in the 1920s and 1930s would have been unable to tell the difference between "The German National Socialist Workers Party" and the "Social Democratic Party of Germany"?Anyway, we are on the ballot paper at elections as "The Socialist Party (GB)" and on our leaflets as "The Socialist Party".

[ALB]

The (expected) difficulties of one of the other candidates:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f378-Royal-Mail-refuses-to-deliver-fascist-BF-election-leaflet#.VFYUNGd6GhoI think it means that Royal Mail have refused the draft they submitted. I wouldn't have thought that they would have printed 50,000 without having first got Royal Mail. But you never know. After all, they are boneheads.

[ALB]

So he's not going to stand for mayor of London (in May 2016):http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/russell-brand-i-dont-want-to-be-mayor-of-london/But, judging from the discussion at our autumn delegate meeting last weekend neither are we.

[ALB]

I think the part of the quote you give about the women of Kobani being betrayed is unfair as far as the Iraqi Kurds Peshmerga are concerned as they too have women fighters:http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2014/oct/09/kurdish-peshmerga-fighters-women-on-the-frontline-in-pictures

[ALB]

Comment from a member who is not on this forum:

Quote:

Also, this point of his about the future being co-ops/collectivised communities etc; obviously he has to be put straight on production for use NOT sale, BUT might we not share his description of the actual living arrangements? Presumably socialism WILL mean collective, co-operative communities/networks/towns/regions etc… (as opposed to nation-states and companies/corporations etc)

[ALB]

Perhaps, Gnome,  she'll be organising one in this by-election too for you to leaflet unless it clashes with the meeting organised by People before Profit:https://twitter.com/rosiekinchen/status/517254179937853440

[ALB]

More on this oxymoronic party here:http://www.patriotic-socialist.org.uk/I think they chose the word "Patriotic" as "National" would have made it immediately obvious what they are.

[ALB]

Actually, I think his position on money would be that if some "autonomous, collectivised communities" wanted to abolish it, they could. But, also, that if other communities wanted to keep it or use labour-time vouchers they, too, could.  He's impressed by what happened briefly in parts of Spain in 1936-7 where some agricultural communes used money and some didn't. He writes highly of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, which is a good book well worth reading.

[ALB]

I finished reading his book Revolution last night. A bit disappointing in some respects as a large part of it deals with his personal "spiritual revolution" that has led him to his present political position. So there's a lot about "God" and New Age mysticism. The second part, where he outlines what he means by "revolution", is better For instance:

Quote:

The answer to the quandry of how to reorganise society isn't new leaders within the same system, the answer isn't leaders at all. The answer is, of course, simple: we can run our own lives and our own communities. We're not idiots, we need to establish a few immutable, non-negotiable principles, mostly to respect the planet and individual freedom, then look at who is benefiting from things being the way they are now and, using no violence when we approach them and not titles when we address them, politely insist they give us our planet back. [Chapter 23, opening paragraph)

Not so sure about the "politely" or that he'd be capable of being polite !And in answer to the question "What would this Revolution look like?" (from the opening paragraphs of chapter 29):

Quote:

It is defined and achieved by a sustained, mass-supported attack on the hegemony of corporations and the regulations that allow them to dominate us. It is the radical decentralisation of power, whether private or state. It is the return of power to us, the people at the level of community. It is the assertion of spirituality, of whatever form, to the heart of our social structures.

Quote:

The nation state may have served its purpose and have to be dissolved (….) State power to dissolve wherever possible to empower autonomous, democratic communities.

Basically, he sees the world as becoming

Quote:

a federation of fully autonomous, interconnected collectivities led by elected local jurors from the community that followed a central edict built on respecting the way of life of others and ecological responsibility.

These will be based on direct democracy and can vary according to their members wishes. Some might be religious. Some not. The sort he personally favours  would be "secular, mixed, ecologically responsible, electronically democratic".As to any workplaces now owned by corporations "we could collective it and run it  as  a worker-owned co-operative":

Quote:

The people that run the factories, design the cars, work in the canteens, do the admin, all that (I'm not an expert, who knows what they get up to), will own and run the company. Each region will be autonomous and fully self-supporting except in matters that affect other areas of the organisation or the planet or humanity as a whole. They can democratically elect a board from the workforce who will serve for a limited period and are kicked off if they fuck about.

The trouble, from our point of view, is that he envisages these worker-run co-operatives still producing for sale. We've met this before and have criticised it when put forward by Richard Woolf of the "Capitalism Hits the Fan" film. Even so, the book will still bring basic anti-capitalist and alternative ideas we share to many people we don't reach.If he is to be categorised, it will have to be as being in some strand of anarchism (though he doesn't do this himself). In any event, Robin Black of the Black Bloc is wrong to accuse him of not being opposed to the state and capitalism and accusing him of reformism. In one passage,  discussing a Swedish proposal for "employee investment funds", he dismisses it as "a piece of pipsqueak reformism". Pity we didn't think of that description when Peter Thatchell proposed this as one of his "baby steps" in our debate with him.

[ALB]

I see that Ian Bone and Class War were bluffing when they announced they were going to contest this by-election. Perhaps this is the shape of things to come, i.e. most of the candidates they have announced for the next year's general election won't materialise either.TUSC too are not standing, no doubt not wanting to repeat their humiliation in the Eastleigh by-election last year where they finished 13th out of 14 with a mere 62 votes being beaten by various joke candidates. We learned that lesson years ago when we got beaten by Mr Blobby in the Little and Sad by-election and why we have adopted a policy of not contesting parliamentary by-elections.Left Unity are nowhere to be seen either. Also the shape of things to come?That leaves the only "left of Labour" candidate (apart from the Greens) as Nick Long of "People Before Profit" from Lewisham. It appears they are running a serious campaign, printing 55,000 leaflets for free distribution by the post office:http://peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk/rochester-strood/people-profit-stand-rochester-and-stroodThey are also holding a public meeting on Tuesday 18 November at 7.30pm at Strood Methodist Church, Cliffe Rd.Be interesting to see how they do, even though we want "People Not Profit" rather than "People Before Profit". With the large number of candidates I don't think they will do very well. 

[ALB]

An article on Piketty by someone in the tradition of non-market socialism which she defines as:

Quote:

non-market socialists are defined as advocates and activists for a money-free, market-free, wage-free, class-free and state-free society where everyone’s basic needs are met — and power, responsibility and uses of the Earth are shared in fair, i.e. just, and sustainable ways.

Rickety Piketty: the road to non-market socialism

[Author]

Posts