ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Or we could do what this candidate for mayor of Lewisham did in 2010 (and again this year): say that if elected we'd abolish the post of elected mayor:http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4878598.LEWISHAM__Candidate_vows_to_abolish_elected_mayor_system/
Even the demand for the "Abolition of the Wages System" was first raised by artisans who had previously worked for themselves and were protesting against being reduced to working for an employer. It emerged again at the turn of the 20th century when miners in the western US found themselves forced into the same situation — and the Western Federation of Miners was the main force behind the IWW which made this slogan well-known.In other words, it wasn't raised by propertyless proletarians but by people who knew what it meant not to be a wage slave. Generations of workers since have got so used to the wages system they do not understand what the slogan means, even though we like it.
For the SWP take on William Morris (and a criticism of it) see this book review (scroll down to the second one):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1250-october-2008/book-reviews
Short review of Thompson's book here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1968/no-772-december-1968/classic-history-book
Yes, a pity he couldn't. His opponents in the Socialist League really were bomb-throwers as this article from the October 1911 Socialist Standard recorded:
Quote:In the flourishing days of Anarchism in England, when they had captured the "Socialist League," after William Morris, Eleanor Marx and others had left it in disgust., the Anarchists used its organ, the "Commonweal," to push its reactionary propaganda. Thus D. J. Nichol, the editor, wrote of a Trafalgar Square meeting : "Some people condemned the throwing of the bomb at Chicago ; for my part I think it would have been well in London if a man had been found courageous enough to hurl death and destruction among the ruffians who attacked a peaceful meeting." (Nov. 11, 1891)In the next issue they eulogised the Tennessee escaped prisoners who carried on open pillage in these terms : "You have shown the workers of America—aye, and of the world—how to free themselves, not at the ballot-box but with the rifle, the torch, and the dynamite bomb." It commended the Anarchist, Ravachol, who murdered and robbed an old man and was guillotined, in the following words : "Thus finished another stage in the career of a man who has shaken capitalism to its foundations and shown the workers an example worthy of emulation. We are anxiously awaiting the advent of some English Ravachols." (July 2, 1892.)Many other examples could be quoted but one more must, suffice. "We say that individual acts have always been a success. The man who strangled Watrin [a French mine-owner whose men were on strike], Pini, who robbed the banks, have opened more eyes than all the pamphlet writers in a century. Our aims can only be attained by accumulated individual actions against property and the men who hold it." (Dec. 19, 1891).When the Anarchist "movement" was less feeble its votaries carried out its teachings. In 1893 August Vaillant, the French Anarchist, threw a bomb into the French Parliament from the public gallery. Over 60 people were wounded and he was guillotined. In 1894 Martial Bourdin blew himself to atoms while fixing a bomb near the Royal Observatory, in. Greenwich Park. In the same year a Deptford "comrade," Rolla Richards, got 7 years for blowing up several South London Post offices, Emile Henry, too, threw a bomb from the balcony of the Paris Cafe Terminus, and 2 persons were killed arid 21 injured.The foregoing demonstrate that Anarchism is hostile to working class organisation. While it advocates individual violence, it paves the way for the armed forces of the State to intervene and crush it.No wonder Morris felt he had to distance himself from these nutters.
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.
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.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
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".
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.
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.
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
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)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
