[ALB]

Gnome, what's with this red and black flag? You haven't suddenly gone anarchist, have you? Even the Labour Party stall next to us was all red.

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

ok, so how about the 'fortress Europe' idea – ie: Europe as a Socialist state.Would you agree with that idea?

No. We stand for a world without frontiers in which there will be no nation-states but a united world, no doubt divided for administrative purposes into regions. The EU is at the moment an inter-governmental organisation formed by capitalist states to set up and administer a single, common market. Some of the member-states see it as an embryo European capitalist state to challenge America, Russia and China for world domination, but the current world capitalist crisis seems to have stopped movement in that direction.While we are opposed to the EU as a capitalist institution we are not in favour of campaigning for Britain to withdraw. In or out, Britain would remain capitalist, so this would make no difference to the problems facing the majority class of wage and salary workers as these problems are caused by capitalism not the EU.SPEW, on the other hand, supported the xenophobic "No2EU" campaign during the 2009 Euro elections and will probably do so again in next year's, so dancing to UKIP's tune. We wont. We we'll be campaigning for World Socialism.

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

Does the Socialist Party (England and Wales) have different views on immigration to the SPGB?Hard to get a definintve answer from the SPEW on this one.Thanks

Yes. Our views are being explained in the other thread, on immigration. SPEW's position on this is ambiguous. Their strategy at the moment is to seek the support of trade union militants and officials and are well aware of the trade union defence of "British Jobs for British Workers" (similar to the case you have been arguing) — trade unions represent only a section of the working class, their members, sometimes at the expense of other workers. So, in order to appear "credible" to their target audience, they don't demand an end to immigration controls.  Here's in a document for their conference this year, is how they explain their position on this:

Quote:

We staunchly oppose racism. We defend the right to asylum, and argue for the end of repressive measures like detention centres.At the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of 'open borders' or 'no immigration controls', which would be a barrier to convincing workers of a socialist programme, both on immigration and other issues.Such a demand would alienate the vast majority of the working class, including many more long-standing immigrants, who would see it as a threat to jobs, wages and living conditions.Nor can we make the mistake of dismissing workers who express concerns about immigration as 'racists'.While racism and nationalism are clearly elements in anti-immigrant feeling, there are many consciously anti-racist workers who are concerned about the scale of immigration.We have to put forward a programme which unites the working class in dealing with the consequences of immigration.Crucially, we argue for the rate for the job for all workers, regardless of what corner of the world they originate from, explaining to workers born in Britain that this is the only effective way to counter 'the race to the bottom'.

Make of it what you will, but it seems a bit of a concession to popular prejudice (even if, given capitalism, it is unrealistic to expect  any government  to abandon all immigrant controls and so pointless to campaign for this).

[ALB]

Utopian Socialism lives, with Fresco's circular cities replacing Fourier's phlansteries and Robert Owen's "parallelograms". But at least he got in that wars won't end till we make "all the world's resources available to all the world's people."Maybe the BBC will put this other video on their site next.

[ALB]

I agree with JohnD, I'd start with Engels's Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.Then it depends on what you're interested in: Marx's theory of history or his theory of how capitalism works.If history, there's:The German Ideology (chapter 1) (with Engels)The Communist Manifesto (with Engels)Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyThe Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (by Engels)If economics,Value, Price and ProfitA Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyCapital (volume 1, from chapter 4 if you like, as A Contribution to the Critique covers the same ground as chapters 1-3 but in simpler language).

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

What are the key differences here?

This article explains the origins and policies of "SPEW" and how we differ from them:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1997/no-1110-february-1997/militant-dishonesty

wiscalatus wrote:

I've had a look through the general info in the 'about us' section so do have the overview, but would you say that the SP is more of a 'reform of capitalism' type party?

Yes

wiscalatus wrote:

And how about the TUSC, are you in it, and if not, then why not?

We are not in it. TUSC is a project, fronted by "SPEW" and funded by Bob Crow of the RMT union, to try to create a Labour Park Mark 2, i.e a trade union based reformist party. But why try to repeat a formula that has already been tried and failed?Hope this helps.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Can you provide email copies of this bulletin (and any earlier relevant ones)? Or publish it on this site, which would be best.

It's 19 pages and over 6000 words long and done using old-fashioned technology (roneoed from a stencil, but at least the pages are A4 not foolscap), but it's not proving too difficult to scan. In the meantime here's some extracts to give an idea of the argument developed in it (I see it's not a simple Education Bulletin but an "Education & Discussion" one):

Quote:

Is Socialism Scientific?Hitherto the party has assumes the existence of a scientific method, routinely applied in the natural sciences, producing results which stand as the exemplars of objective knowledge.  In trying to answer the question heading above we have selected an example of this assumed method applied to a physical situation, then compared the results achieved with the application of party theory to the analysis of the capitalist system.  The inference drawn is that socialist knowledge bears direct comparison with scientific knowledge.This whole approach poses problems because it seems impossible to make clear the nature of "scientific method" and it makes the validity of the socialist case dependent upon the truth of the current scientific orthodoxy chosen as the base for comparison.

Quote:

If, like Karl Popper, you are a fallibilist (someone who believes that scientists spend their time in laboratories making inspired conjectures and setting up experiments aimed at refuting them) then the socialist revolution for you can be considered as an attempt to refute the theory of the SPGB. (…).The fallibilist argument above has been used by the party since before the first world war. It is a useful rhetorical device, but it commits us to the view that science operates as Popper says. Whereas the history of science, in episodes like the rise of non-Euclidean geometry, continental drift and quantum theories, suggests that science is carried out in quite a different fashion. On this other view the scientific community is split at times into warring factions, many members of which would sooner die than admit any of their opponents claims.The alternative to Popper is that of T.S.Kuhn, who points to the function of dogma in sciences which move from one tenaciously held exemplary theory and achievement, like that of Newton's Principia, to another, like Einsteinian relativistic mechanics.

Quote:

Is science Social?Frequently when one makes a person doubt their implicit belief in the way knowledge is constructed, that person is struck with epistemologic terror; being unable to imagine for some time any other ground for knowledge in a world where the foundations have been removed. While this an understandable response it is not necessary because the communities of scientists and non-scientists carry on; what is a practical matter is the business of society. Whereas questions about what constitutes sciemce or alternative epistemologies are theoretical or philosophical notions scientists and people in the world can operate just as they always did in complete ignorance of those notions. Unless they think about the matter, the social formation and institutions of capitalism in which they live, provide the day-to-day motivations for their actions. Hence the proud words in the programmatic introduction by Marx to his Critique of Political Economy,“The mode of production of material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines thsir existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness. (Quoted in Historical Materialism, SPGB pamphlet, p.60).The party has extended this viewpoint in various ways, applying it to modern capitalism and has found that the general character of the political and spiritual processes of the peoples of the world has been conditioned into uniformity by the world-wide expansion of the capitalist system. Why then should we reserve a privileged place for science? Why exempt physical science, one of the cultural products which capitalism finds most useful, from this analysis? What else can science be but the creation of social actors in definite historical circumstances?

Quote:

Radical Science?There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excresences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take eway the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the Walsby Society argument against socialism was wrong. So with this we have come full circle.

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

Indeed I think its possible that Left Unity could (could) become the kind of organisation that Max Rubel was alluding to in Non-Market Socialism when he spoke of revolutionary reformism.

Checking up on what Rubel might or might not have said on this I came across this:http://worldincommonblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/ecosocialist-manifesto-2nd-draft/So you (and us) have been there before ! Only then those you though might be regarded as "revolutionary reformists" were a tendency within …. the Green Party. There were hints at the time that some Trotskyists were behind this too. In fact the "Socialist Resistance" lot, who later migrated to Respect and have now moved into the new Left Unity Party. Talk about history repeating itself."Socialist Resistance" ( "The Fourth International in Britain")  supports the "Left Party platform" criticising the "Socialist platform" as …. "impossibilist":

Quote:

There is no acknowledgement that fighting for reforms in the short term is entirely compatible with aiming for socialism in the longer term. Absent is any idea that a fight for reforms can raise people’s self-activity and point towards escalating demands; instead we are offered something approaching impossibilism. Current struggles are played down in favour of visions of a utopian future. [Their link]

That's an accusation that must send their Trotskyist rivals behind the "Socialist Platform" reeling. So, Ed, how can we avoid getting in on this debate (even if not in the form suggested so far)? There's an open invitation here.Incidentally, JP,  I've just re-read Rubel's contribution to the Non-Market Socialism book and the term he uses is "reformist-revolutionary transition" (it's on page 31). By which I think he meant what happens after a socialist majority has won control of political power: he envisaged a longer "transition period" between capitalism and socialism/communism than us in which society would be gradually ("reformist") transformed from one into the other. He was not talking about a "revolutionary reformist" strategy to win control of political power as you seem to be thinking.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

Are you asking me about my personal opinions, or about scientific methodology?If no-one here wants to read, think about and discuss 'science', and just fall back onto 'common sense' and 'what folk believe', that's OK by me. I'll leave it alone.

I don't know why you are so touchy about this. I was trying to make a general philosophical point about your "theory of truth" and to tease out how you distinguish between a "true" and a "wrong" statement.

LBird wrote:

After being recommended  Assiter's article by you, ALB, and having posted some thoughts on it, I'm not sure why you haven't started to discuss the article.

Because I've not yet re-read the article and was out all day yesterday helping to run a Socialist Party literature stall. But I will contribute something later on the SPGB Education Bulletin I mentioned.PS. I hope that quoting that Anderton bloke doesn't mean you believe in UFOs. Please tell us that you don't and that this was just an unintended own goal.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering.

This is an exaggeration. The BBC has been regularly interviewing Tory MPs who are opposed to British intervention in the Syrian civil war. Two in particular are John Baron and Adam Holloway. Both have a military background and could well be unofficial spokespersons for a section of the military establishment that is opposed to intervention (though in the end the military will do what the government tells them). But the ruling class seem to be split on this one.Just listened to Holloway on Radio 4. Here's some of what what he said (he was actually more forcefully anti-intervention):

Quote:

Conservative MP Adam Holloway said Parliament must be consulted but he doubted whether MPs would sanction any military action, since intervention was not in the UK's national security interest and would be "pure foolishness".

It appears that a "No" vote in parliament would be much more effective than any anti-war march. Which, after all, is what we'd expect, isn't it?.(Of course this should be a separate thread)

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP is wrong

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

[ALB]

It's the SWP. The bit about the "revolutionary party" is a bit of a give away.

[ALB]

What is the name of this "UFO science" person?

[ALB]

What I do when this happens (sometimes when pasting a text typed somewhere else) is click "Disable rich-text" and insert </p><p> where you want the line break(s).Then press Preview" to see if it has worked.Just has for me.

[ALB]

User555net wrote:

Christianity persuades people that women are inferior, science is a hoax, gays are sinful and the bible is the law.

Which part of the world are you from? Over here in England most Christians don't believe these things but have adapted to the secular society and its values that surround them and don't think women are inferior (women bishops are coming soon), accept science (including Darwin and evolution), don't think gays are sinful (there are even openly gay clergymen) or that the bible is the law.  Only a few fundamentalist sects believe these things and nobody takes them seriously. In other words, over here, the battle against fundamentalist christianity has been won.Modernised christianity still preaches fairy tales about a man called Jesus who is supposed to have existed 2000 years ago in Palestine and who died and then came alive again, etc, etc and they still preach that the world we live in is not the only one but that when we die, if we've been good, we'll move on to a better one and that trying to get there is the aim of life.. This view still has to combatted. And we do. Our position on religion in general can be summed up as follows:

Quote:

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 approaches are simply incompatible.

[Author]

Posts