[ALB]

This doesn't seem to be a direct response to the EC statement but a response to another statement of the party position on the issue.I did notice one sleight of hand by Armstrong. The statement he criticises says that:

Quote:

“We have all the constitutional laws available for our use to change our necessary social institutions to work for us, so we can live in a peaceful and prosperous society.”

In other words, that the political institutions that exist are sufficient to enable a socialist majority to get its way.Armstrong twists this into a statement that existing political institutions are perfect:

Quote:

It accepts that the ‘British state’ (blind to its Northern Irish component) provides us with “all the constitutional laws” we need – a very paragon of democracy! Here, the SPGB agrees not only with the Labour Party and other social democrats, but with liberals too!

Obviously he doesn't understand the difference between "sufficient" and "perfect". Or perhaps he does.This article from the October 1925 Socialist Standard, aptly entitled "Confusion in Scotland", deals with "Scottish Republicanism".http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1925/no-254-october-1925/confusion-scotlandOur position then is the same at it is now:

Quote:

The object of the Party, founded by the late John Maclean, is a Workers' Republic for Scotland.The Manifesto sets out the slave position of the working class, and urges that the workers must carry through the Social Revolution.The chief fallacy of their position is their insistence upon a Scottish Workers' Republic. This demand is both reactionary and Utopian. The struggle of the workers of the United Kingdom must be a united one. The workers are under the domination of a class who rule by the use of a political machine which is the chief governing instrument for England, Scotland, Wales, etc. To appeal to the workers of Scotland for a Scottish Workers' Republic is to arouse and foster the narrow spirit of Nationalism, so well used by our masters. Economically the demand is Utopian, as the development of capitalism has made countries more and more dependent on each other, both through the specialisation of industry or agriculture, and also by the force controlled by the Great Powers to suppress or control the smaller nations.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

As the Assistant Secretary of the Party recently opined:"There is no longer any restriction on using 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain'.https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/15433

Only if you are prepared to argue that Militant have successfully usurped one of our names and to surrender it to them.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Would these 'voluntary societies' have any form of power? If so, they must be under democratic control. If you're talking about 'knitting circles', an elite 'bobble-hat production society', probably not! After all, we're taking about politics and science, here, aren't we?

Yes, we are. I was thinking of something along the lines of the International Astronomical Union which voted a few years ago on the definition of a planet. Or other scientific societies which people could join. Obviously they'd have to be run democratically and maybe established and governed by a general democratic decision on such bodies. I thought that that was what you had in mind when you wrote about people being able to choose what scientific issues they wanted to vote on.

LBird wrote:

The philosophy of science will be an integral part of politics, economics, socialist revolution, socialism and participatory democracy.

Could be, I suppose, but I can't see people being turned away from participating in the establishment of socialism because they had an "incorrect" philosophy of science or none at all (any more than religious people could be).

[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

It seems to me that the head of this site  The Socialist Party of Great Britain  and the new HO fascia contravenes the 1988 resolution.

I think that would be going too far. We didn't have a website in 1988 and it has always been accepted that we should use the full name in an international context and the internet is one. Defenders of the recent Conference decision will say that it amends the 1988 resolution just as an earlier Conference decision to restore "of Great Britain" on the front of the Socialist Standard did. I think we can accept that these decisions have been made constitutionally. It's their wisfom that is contestable.

[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

An end to the multiple logos and party names.

Good idea. We did get there in 1988 when Conference passed the following resolution to regulate the use of the various names under the party is known.

Quote:

Tnis Conference resolves that the Party's full name, 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases:(a) Legal documents, Forms A. to G, membership cards.(b) The World Socialist Movement listing box, The World Socialist Movement publications box, the 'Address of: the Party' box on the inside page of. the Socialist Standard giving details of EC Meetings, etc.'The Socialist Party' to be used in the following cases:(1) On the covers of the Socialist Standard, pamphlets and leaflets.(2) Generally in the texts of articles and pamphlets.(3) On all occasions where the address of Head Office is given, e.g. headed notepaper, adverts for socialist material, etc., except in (b) above.(4) All advertising and publicity material, posters, media adverts, etc.(5) In the titles of meetings and debates, and as the organiser of them.(6) Generally by speakers at indoor and outdoor meetings.(7) Manifestoes, election addresses, etc.( On the Head Office shop front fascia

It caused a bit fuss (to put it mildly) but was confirmed in a subsequent party poll.The trouble is that, in the last decade or so, opponents of it have been trying to gradually whittle it away, their latest success being the recent decision not only to restore "of Great Britain" to the fascia but, worse, to add SPGB as well.I'm afraid, Vin, the tide has been moving in the opposdite direction, even if (2) to (7) and parts of (1) still stand. But maybe, hopefully, a majority can still be found to stop it it being whittled away any further.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science, we're never going to see Communism. We'll have to be doing all these activities, with equal relish!

This looks as if this could be a more interesting discussion if only because it's not going over the same old ground yet again. Of course socialism can never come if people are not going to concern themselves about politics and economics (not so sure about the need for them to immerse themselves in "the philosophy of science" as well) and both the socialist revolution and its outcome (socialism) will have to involve participatory democracy. As the saying goes, the emancipation of the working class has to be the work of the working class itself (not of any leaders, vanguard or elite).

LBird wrote:

So, who's to decide whether someone does or doesn't know 'something'? Why not go the whole Leninist hog, and let the Party decide on who gets to 'have a say'.

I can imagine voluntary societies which determine who can join them. There won't of course be any party in socialism.

LBird wrote:

Can't we trust those who have made a revolution to show some interest in their self-declared arenas of voting, and confidently expect that they'll make themselves aware to the necessary extent?

Yes, I would have thought so.

LBird wrote:

Especially as our society will be set up to do just that, to allow all its members to develop themselves? And especially given that the SPGB argues for mass participation in the revolutionary process?

Good point.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

'Leaving decisions' to an elite? Doesn't sound very 'revolutionary' to me, ALB.

It's a question of where you draw the line. I still don't see why all decisions have to be made by a direct vote of everybody. The line will have to be (and no doubt will be) between the extreme positions of Zeitgeist (that non-experts can only make suggestions to the experts) and what appears to be yours (that no decisions should be made by them). And what about the voluntary societies formed by people interested in a particular subject, would these be an "elite" in your eyes?

LBird wrote:

Perhaps this is why the 'parliamentary road' is so attractive to SPGB members?

I wouldn't have thought so as even Workers Councils will be organised on the basis of elected delegates wouldn't they?

LBird wrote:

I'd expect a Communist majority in parliament to legally dissolve that parliament, and hand over political control to the parallel proletarian organisations within Workers' Councils, which will have developed at the same time as the increasing vote for Communist MPs within parliament.

That's a possibility that would need to be debated and decided at the time. Not sure that that would be the chosen option, though. Another would be to integrate the workers organisations that would have evolved outside parliament into the democratic administrative structure of socialist society along with parliament (as a central body elected by all the people) and today's local councils.

LBird wrote:

I'm all for the SPGB strategy of education, propaganda, development of the mass of the working class – I've no time for Leninist parties, or 'revolution first by a party, then hand over to the class afterwards' methods of the ICC, for example.

That's good.

LBird wrote:

But that SPGB strategy does lead to workers' control doesn't it? And not just representatives' control?

Well, it leads to democratic control and a genuine participatory democracy but not necessarily to direct democracy for all decisions. Elected delegates, answerable to those who elected them, will also have a place, I daresay the major place. You're not opposed to all elected councils, committees and positions, are you?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on …

Isn't that just democracy?No one tells you that 'you can't vote'. You decide. If you're interested, you'll do the work required, and have your say in a vote.If you're not interested, you find something better, and just as important to running our society, to take up your time.

That's a relief. You had me worried for a moment that I'd have to spent all my time in socialism voting on subjects I didn't know anything about ot wasn't interested in. It still worries me, though,  that someone who thinks they know something about something but doesn't can have a say in deciding something that might affect me.  I don't think I want the whole hospital staff voting on what treatment I should get …The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'd've thought Communism would involve expanding the education of all humans, to allow all to participate in the running of their society, including the generation of its knowledge.

I'm sure scientific education and knowledge will be much more widespread in socialist/communist society than today under capitalism, but I can't see everyone needing to be well-informed enough to vote intelligently on every scientific issue. Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on the classification of some new animal discovered in the jungles of Vietnam or under the Antarctic ice. Don't know about you. 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?

I can sense some fervour in this discussion but I can't think know why but something about people in glass houses comes to mind.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I think it best to clarify what is meant by 'materialism'.

I thought I had but there are of course narrower definitions (which we can discuss, again, if you want). Personally I'm proud to call myself a "materialist", always have been, despite the word's association with one-sided, mechanical materialism. You're one too on this definition.[quote+LBird]But 'materialists' are idealists and religious! They worship 'nature' (or, 'maths', some of them).[/quote]It looks as if you need to define what you mean by "religious". It doesn't seem to be a normal usage.Anyway, for what's it's worth, here's a resolution carried at the 2003 SPGB Conference:

Quote:

That this conference endorses the editorial Committee's reply to a correspondent's letter in the May 2002 Socialist Standard and holds that it is a good brief summing up of the party's position. 'The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs. Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly the two are incompatible'.

That's good enough for me as a minimalist position. Maybe for you also? 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?

I wouldn't have thought so. Not sure I do either. Democratic control of scientific research, yes, but settling rival explanations of some phenomenon offered by scientists by a general vote even in socialist/communist society, I don't think so. Certainly not today.

[ALB]

Obviously I was using the word "materialism" in a very general sense to mean nothing more, in the end, than "non-religious" and "non-theistic", not in any particular narrow, technical philosophical sense. Obviously too, Marx (and Engels) were materialists in this sense.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'Marx was wrong' about a unified scientific method, and then I can go away, and do something better with my time.I agree with Marx. If the SPGB doesn't, say so, and I'll bid you all a comradely 'goodbye'.

As you can see from this thread (and all the many other threads on the subject), the SPGB doesn't have a Party position on the nature of science, and does not see the need to, but members hold a variety of materialistic positions. All we are committed to is a general materialist and non-religious position. As one such position yours would not be a bar to membership. So you could argue your point of view from within just as much as from outside the party.

[ALB]

You could be right. Now you mention it, a comrade from a Jewish background did once tell me that when the end came all Jews would be resurrected and live in paradise irrespective of what sort of lives they had led. Clearly, such a doctrine would not be an effective way of controlling people's behaviour. Hence the need for the sanction that, if you didn't follow the religion's precepts, your descendants would suffer till the 3rd or 4th generations.My view was based on what the Bible New Testament and the Koran say some Jews held. The Sadducees, mentioned in the New Testament, didn't belief in resuurection or life after death, at least not according to this:

Quote:

The Sadducees thought of themselves as "conservatives," as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.

The article does go on to explain that the Sadducees died out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD and that modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees (who did believe all this nonsense).Mohammed also believed this nonsense about the resurrection of the dead but, according to the Koran, this was not well received by some:

Quote:

[6:29] They say (subconsciously), "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected."[23:37] "We only live this life – we live and die – and we will never be resurrected."[44:34] The present generations say,[44:35] "We only die the first death; we will never be resurrected!"

These sceptics are believed to have been Jews (rather than Greek philosophers or socialist materialists). Needless to say, Mohammed said they would rot in hell:

Quote:

[13:5] If you ever wonder, the real wonder is their saying: "After we turn into dust, do we get recreated anew?" These are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord. These are the ones who have incurred shackles around their necks. These are the ones who have incurred Hell, wherein they abide forever.[17:97] Whomever God guides is the truly guided one. And whomever He sends astray, you will never find for them any lords and masters beside Him. We will summon them on the Day of Resurrection forcibly; blind, dumb, and deaf. Their destination is Hell; whenever it cools down, we will increase their fire.[17:98] Such is their just retribution, since they rejected our revelations. They said, "After we turn into bones and fragments, do we get resurrected into a new creation?"

Presumably that's our fate too, even after being beheaded.

[ALB]

I wasn't trying to categorise you as a "Machist". Just pointing out that in the passage quoted in the book he seemed to be saying something similar to what you are. Pannekoek had a much higher regard for Mach than Lenin did and can even be said to have been influenced by him. I wouldn't have thought he would have denied it.Incidentally, DJP, an "instrumentalist" or "phenomenalist" is not committed to the view that there is not a "real" world out there, only to denying that there exists something "more reral" beyond the observable world. So LBird needn't necesarily be holding two positions that contradict each other. His problem, as far as I can see, is that he regards any interpretation of the observable world as entirely subjective, hence opening the door to "extreme relativism". As Mach put in that quote given in the book:

Quote:

in the investigation of nature, we have to deal only with knowledge of the connexion of apperarances with one another. What we represent to ourselves behind the appearances exists only in our understanding, and has for us only the value of a  memoria technica or formula, whose form, because it is artbitrary and irrelevant, varies very easily with the standpoint of our culture.

I think I'm right, aren't I, LBird, that you want  to argue which is the best subjective interpretation from a working class or communist point of view? Most of us here can see that this might make sense with regard to history, society, economics but not to the so-called natural sciences, e.g. there is no "proletarian" or "communist" or "bourgeois" or "capitalist" astronomy or chemistry, just astronomy or chemistry.

[Author]

Posts