[ALB]

I think I may have quoted this here before or maybe it was on libcom, but here's an extract from a Trotskyist pamphlet by Doug Jenness entitled Lenin As Election Campaign Manager (apparently, he did that too) on how in 1912 the Bolshevik members of the Fourth Tsarist Duma acted:

Quote:

On the opening day of the first session of the fourth Duma, the joint caucus refused to participate in the selection of a presiding committee and a presiding chairman. This action was indicative of the policy that the Bolshevik deputies were to take for the next two-and-a-half years. They spoke on the floor, introduced exposes about the conditions of the working class, demanded answers from various government ministers about why things weren't being done better or differently, and participated in committees. But they did not help work on legislation or pass laws. On almost all the bills that came before the Duma, they abstained from the vote. When occasionally a law was introduced that would have a certain benefit for the working class, they would vote for it. But that occurred very, very rarely in the reactionary Duma.

Oh dear, it seems we have more in common with the Bolsheviks than the ICC and CWO, at least until they got power and dissolved parliament. 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Maybe we should call ourselves, the Planetary Party…just kidding

Actually, the current Party Treasurer once suggested we should call ourselves the Earth Socialist Party, or ESP.

[ALB]

The last thing we want is another big, divisive debate over the name. We've reached a more or less acceptable compromise. So let's not stir things up but let sleeping dogs lie.

[ALB]

I think he was talking about "raising consciousness" about the existence of or the facts about some problem which plenty of groups are into. In which case he's got a point. What is also required is what we are into — trying to raise consciousness as to what the framework for solving the problem is.

[ALB]

I've got my doubts about this too. It wasn't me but a member who was more into Hegel than most members wot did it. I can't remember what the argument was but it may have had something to do with the "rational" having to be "real". The comrade is still around beavering away on the internet. I believe that "critical realism" also subscribes to this view (we may as well discuss this on this thread too, as on all others )

[ALB]

Quote:

Quote:

Hi JDWDo you or anyone in the Party know if this challenge was ever answered?

I don't think so, though they did reply to Walsby (search for Mugwump and Moonshine https://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority), but for a reply to Walford you're probably better off looking at gwiep website through the archives of Ideological Commentary journal. Here's a link to get you startedhttp://gwiep.net/wp/?tag=socialism

The reply was written by a comrade of the time, Barry McNeeney, but it does not seem to exist in electronic form but I could send you a paper copy if you contribute a fiver to Party funds.On the other hand, this other reply, from IC47, 48 and 49, does:See:http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3410http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3464http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3502And:http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3567Good luck.

[ALB]

Yes, it was. Walford was an infuriating character and incorrigible logic-chopper and nit-picker. He died shortly after attending an SPGB meeting at which a Party member tried to convince him that you can derive an "ought" from an "is".He published a magazine almost entirely devoted to criticising and trying to provoke us, but actually seems to have had a bit of a soft spot for us, as he also wrote this;

Quote:

The SPGB has neither a leader nor a hierarchy of committees, and it repudiates the principle of leadership. Organised as local branches, the members of each electing their own officers independently of Head Office (which serves as hardly more than a clearing-house) and sending delegates to the annual Conference, it works throughout on one person one vote and simple majorities. Subject to a minimum of procedural rules any branch can bring any issue before Conference and Conference decisions bind the Executive Committee (which, like the Party Officers, is elected annually by vote of the whole Party). Any six branches can call a Party poll, and any member expelled can appeal to the annual Conference. All meetings of the Executive Committee and the branches, Delegate Meetings and Conference, are open to all members (and in fact to the public). These are not just aspirations or entries in the Rule Book; unlike other parties the SPGB really does function in this way. A majority of the members controls the organisation and its officers. George Walford, Angles on Anarchism, 1991, p. 53.

[ALB]

steve colborn wrote:

Is there a problem with non-members commenting on Party issues on Party sites?

Not really. But some non-members make the same comment over and over and over again. It's boring and sometimes infuriating but we can live with it

[ALB]

There are clearly some interesting ideas circulating in the area but I wonder how widespread they are. I remember "left communists" getting worked up by the formation of "workers' councils" in Iraqi Kurdistan in the uprising there against the Saddam regime in 1991. For instance:http://www.campin.me.uk/Politics/kurdistan/shoras.htmlWe know that there is nothing particularly remarkable about "workers councils" and that they tend to emerge in conditions where there has not been any local government structure (and that they are not necessarily politically acceptable — witness the 1974 Ulster Workers Council). But at least they show that workers are capable of taking things in hand.We had a member who came from Iraqi Kurdistan who had previously been a member of the Workers Communist Party of Iraq. He is no longer a member and is now back there. His account of politics in Iraqi Kurdistan was that it was dominated by two clans and that you had to show support for one or the other if you wanted a government job or other favour. (He said the best solution was to join both). I notice from watching TV that the head of the government there is called Barzani and that the man in charge of the armed forces there is also called Barzani (his son, I think).I would think that Kurdish nationalism is the dominating ideology in the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria. Not half as bad, I agree, as the barbarian ideology of the Islamists.

[ALB]

Here's Zizek's comment on Piketty:

Quote:

As with everyone I of course admire Piketty's book. But I think that his solution, raising the taxes for the rich, is utopian. Why? For two reasons. First, Piketty is very clear about this point. He think capitalism is the only system that works. So he wants to keep the capitalist dynamics but just make it more just through higher taxes. I think in today's global capitalism you cannot do this. So would have to have some kind of global government which would be able to impose these higher taxes universally. But if we have this then we, radical left, already won. Then we no longer live in the same capitalist world. So Piketty's solution presupposes that we already won.Next point: even if, let us say, some social democratic government were to introduce higher taxes, in order to elect and maintain this measure other changes will have to follow. You cannot have capitalism the way we have it, just with higher taxes. And here I see the problem. I am more of a pessimist – this doesn't just go for Piketty, this goes for Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz and so on. Yes, we should begin with what they propose, but we should be aware that this is just the beginning. And the problem is what comes next. Where much tougher measures are needed.

It's here. Scroll down to entry for 8 October at 2.59 pm.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

2008 Conference resolution wrote:

It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names."

(emphasis added)

Young Master Smeet wrote:

….where confusion is unlikely to occur.

The possibility of confusion occuring is always likely.  See here, for a very recent example:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11077637/Ukips-radio-rant-candidate-Elizabeth-Jones-worse-than-Katie-Hopkins.html

This is a defeatist argument. Next you'll be arguing that we should not call ourselves "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" either because the possibility of confusion with a similarly named organisation will always be likely. In fact, whatever we call ourselves, the "possibility" (not a word that occurs in the resolution) of confusion will "always" exist.When people try to steal your name you've got to make a stand at some point. You seem prepared to hoist the white flag and surrender the name "The Socialist Party" to the ex-Miliitant Trotskyists. Like the late Rev Inane Paisley, I say "No Surrender" and "Never, never, never".They are the confusionists. We should challenge them every time they use our name (I did in a comment on that news item sent to the Daily Telegraph) not roll over and let them have the name. They are not the Socialist Party. We are. They are not even socialists.          

[ALB]

The last fifty years? The only thing that comes to mind is the incorporation of ecological theory. You could add, even though they were first put forward in the previous thirty years (but they were refined and developed, especially the first, in the 1950s and 60s)(a) the cultural criticism of capitalism of the Frankfurt School, i.e criticism of the poor quality as well as the lack of quantity (material poverty) of life under capitalism.(b) the theory of state capitalism and of a collective owning and exploiting class on the basis of them monopolising the state where the means of production are state owned.

[ALB]

I think we need to draw a distinction between our "emblem" on the ballot paper (which is an immediate issue) and a general logo (which has been discussed for over 20 years without being able to come to a decision).We are registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections under our full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". They will not let us use or register as a variant "The Socialist Party". What we can use (and do) is "The Socialist Party (GB)". I suppose, because we have registered "World Socialist Movement" as a variant, we might be able to get away with our emblem saying "The Socialist Party World Socialist Movement". Also, we are entitled to register three different "emblems", so we could register both.This is an immediate issue that needs resolving before next year's general election and cannot wait for a Conference resolution but we could get an indicative vote at ADM in a couple of weeks. Unlike the less immediate but still important issue of a general logo and the not at all immediate issue of a complete change of name.

[ALB]

Trouble is that since the first space flight cosmonauts noticed that longitude lines could not be seen from space

[ALB]

Fuzzy83 wrote:

My only problem about globalisation is it gives too much power to corporations to exploit workers.For example the main reason people are angry about immigration is because the amount of jobs vs the amount of workers. It creates a even hostile economy for those trying to get a foot on the job ladder.

I'm not sure this can be blamed on globalization as such. It probably has more to do with capitalism going through one of its slumps with increased unemployment meaning more competition for jobs. True, though, globalization — capitalist globalization of course — does place workers in an even weaker position compared to their employers. But the answer is not to try to counter the effects of globalization by trying to retreat behind the frontiers of the so-called nation-state but to move forward to global socialism.

Fuzzy83 wrote:

I almost feel sorry for the SWP/UAF and the EDL/BNP because they are caught in a repetitive cycle that solves nothing.

I don't know about feeling sorry for them but it's true that street-fighting between these rival gangs gets nowhere.

Fuzzy83 wrote:

What are your opinions on the SWP? There is a lot of drama and controversy surrounding them on the left-wing?

Not much. We see them as one of a number of vanguardist groups that seek to lead the workers by offering them simple slogans that don't go beyond capitalism because they think workers can't acquire a socialist understanding direectly or on their own.

Fuzzy83 wrote:

Do you think EDL members can change if someone like myself spends the time showing them how to unplug from the matrix and see the system for what it is?

Of course we think people can change their views, even "fascists" and racists. If we didn't think this we might as well give up.

Fuzzy83 wrote:

Is the TUSC a complete out of the EU group like UKIP is or do they want to offer a referendum?

It's not so much TUSC that are just another anti-EU group as No2EU, though both are supported by the same people (the RMT union and the old Militant Tendency who now call themselves SPEW). In fact SPEW claims to stand for the "Socialist United States of Europe" rather than an "Independent Britain". I don't think they call for a referendum but if there was one I think they would call for a vote to leave the EU (just as they called for a vote for Scotland to leave the UK).

Fuzzy83 wrote:

Personally I believe the EU courts of human rights is something we shouldn't give up too easily because its the only thing stopping us from having another Nazi state.

Yes, it is revealing that those who are always preaching "human rights" to other governments should want to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the EU but is separate). But I don't think it's the only thing stopping us having another Nazi state ! The main thing stopping this is that  the vast majority don't want this and wouldn't stand for it. 

[Author]

Posts