ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don't like to talk of the SPGB coming to power because what our declaration of principles envisages is the working class winning political power and organising themselves to do this, i.e. into a socialist party. In other words, the future mass socialist party will be the working class organised politically for socialism, its instrument to win control of political power to use to end capitalism.
More embarrassing would be if someone asked what "The World for the Workers" means on the Edwardian party badge that JDW likes (I do too and wear it on special occasions).
This seems an interesting meeting to go to for those going to the Anarcho-Fair rather than the TUC march:https://critisticuffs.org/events/london-anarchist-bookfair-2014/elections/
Vin Maratty wrote:I know I keep repeating myself but:We all here are. It's a bit like a pub conversation.
Vin Maratty wrote:The Socialist Party (WSM) in a unique and distinctive style. I can't understand why members would wish to continue the confusion by using different names: Like the top of this siteBut, to continue the pub conversation, the internet being international (think worldwide web) that still doesn't identify which part of the world our site comes from. A more logical version of your proposal would be to make this site a page on the site of the …. World Socialist Movement:http://www.worldsocialism.org/Actually, I think it can be:http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/companion-parties-socialismJust remembered too that between 1988 and 2008 the masthead of the Socialist Standard stated "The journal of The Socialist Party — Companion Party of the World Socialist Movement". We can got back to that when that 2008 resolution is rescinded next year whether by Party Poll or Conference Resolution
DJP wrote:Article by Andrew Kliman on Piketty. Have yet to properly give it a read though…http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/were_top_corporate_executives_really_hogging_workers_wages_20140917Just got round to reading this. It's a criticism of one of the explanations suggested by Piketty for the rise in income inequality in recent years whereas, as socialists, we are more interested in the inequality of the ownership of wealth, or more precisely of income yielding assets,Kliman's article does raise some interesting points about what part of the income of "supermanagers" is really payment for work and what is a share of surplus value either disguised as a part from of their "salary" or as dividends and capital gains from their own personal ownership of stocks and shares. Either way, it shows that inequality of income is due to so much of the income of the top 1 or so percent being a non-work income.
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Maybe we should call ourselves, the Planetary Party…just kiddingActually, the current Party Treasurer once suggested we should call ourselves the Earth Socialist Party, or ESP.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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.
