ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Neither of these is the solution. We don't want either ADM or the whole of next year to be dominated by this spat (Rule 33 involves special branch meetings, a Party meeting and a referendum of the whole membership) when, as everyone here has agreed, conditions haven't been so favorable for getting the socialist case across for quite a while.The solution is simple. For the participants involved to stop telling those they disagree with to fuck off or suggesting that they might be some outside plant sent in to put people off joining the Party.But I must strongly protest against one thing: the attack on Admin. This is a member who has spent hours and hours setting up this forum. He has not been involved in any of this name-calling stuff, but has the responsibility for ensuring that the discussion on this forum is conducted in an orderly manner and that participants don't infringe the rules they agreed to abide by when they joined. Things had got to such a head that he had to intervene. In fact I in effect asked him to by reporting one post.In any event, a warning is just a warning.It is completely out of order to attack Admin in this way. He must be appalled at what is happening here after all the time he spent setting up this forum and trying to makie it a success, as it was beginning to become and still can be if some participants here would just count to ten (or maybe to a hundred) before posting.
gnome wrote:Now here's a thought for the day. Why is it, for example, that the SPGB to this day remains one of a small handful of genuine socialist parties throughout the entire world and why, overwhelmingly, those parties exist in english-speaking areas?Perhaps because our case was "made in Great Britain"?More likely, though, that unlike most other countries the English-speaking countries have had a history of stable parliamentary government that has never been suspended (as it has in all other European countries except Sweden and Switzerland); which has made our case for using elections and parliament more credible. Note that "our political cousins" the SLP of America also envisage using the ballot box. Whatever the reason, nearly all of those we could regard as Socialists in other European countries are anti-parliamentary.
SocialistPunk wrote:Maybe I put it badly on my post, but I see the party of the past, doing better because the political environment was more conducive to class conscious politics via the Trade Union movement. Now Trade Unions are pretty much exhausted, but not dead, the arena for political discussion and awareness has changed, and so the traditional recruiting ground has gone.I think you've got an important point here (which of course doesn't just affect us). We have in effect seen ourselves as part of the broad "working class movement" and this movement establishing socialism when it has been won over to socialist ideas. The language we use — "working class", "exploitation", "surplus value", etc, even "socialism" — assumes a certain degree of "trade union consciousness" amongst those we are addressing.Now that this has declined and less and less workers consider themselves or are considered "working class" this reduces our audience and makes our case seem irrelevant to those outside this reducing audience. That we do, even now, get a better echo mainly amongst people who have a trade union consciousness or who consider themselves working class finds some confirmation in our election results. We do better in seats and wards with a big Labour Party majority and we do better up North than we do in London.Having said this, I'm not sure what we can do about it. Obviously we can't stop talking about "socialism" or "working class" without ceasing to be ourselves. But at least we can make it absolutely clear who we mean when we use the term "working class", i.e not just factory or manual workers but anybody obliged to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary. We don't always do this, with the result that many listeners or readers don't realise that we are addressing them. Myself I always talk of "the wage and salary working class" but I'm not really convinced that to talk of bosses appropriating "unpaid labour" or "the surplus product of the worker's labour" really goes down amongst office workers and workers in service industries, ie workers who are not actually producing a tangible product. Having said that, those are the jobs that most of our members work in these days, whatever significance that has.
SocialistPunk wrote:You got the GB sentiment spot on OGW.Never could understand why a self professed internationalist socialist party used GB in the first place or have kept it for so long?I seem to recall hearing about that when I joined, the way I heard it, a lot of members objected to ditching the GB part as they thought that would lead to a loss of legacies. How short sighted? I think the GB bit has had a negative effect on the party image, it makes me cringe when I say it.If the party got shot of the GB bit I would rejoin tomorrow.Ah (or should that be aagh?) the Party name! Actually, a majority of the Party has taken this on board for the reasons you give (nationalist connotations) and we have largely ditched the GB. Since 1988 we use the shortened version of our name "The Socialist Party" on all our leaflets, on the front of Head Office, in our press advertisements and when we contest elections, relegating the full name for historical, legal and international contexts (which, the internet being international, is the reason we use it on this site, I suppose).Another reason for doing this was to try to claim the name "The Socialist Party", to run alongside "The Labour Party", "The Conservative Party", "The Communist Party", etc. Unfortunately, the Militant Tendency made the same analysis and changed their name to "Socialist Party", despite the fact that we'd been using this ourselves since 1904.At the time some members opposed to the bitter end this change in the name by which we wanted to be called, the bitter end being their expulsion for refusing not to use "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". Seems silly, I know but feelings run high on things like this. In fact, in my view, this was the worse thing that has ever happened to the Party in its existence.So, I'm sure you'll understand members' reluctance to re-open the matter, not even to gain another member. It's playing with dynamite, but I suppose this is allowed in a brainstorming.
SocialistPunk wrote:Festivals of all types are big these days, Glastonbury has a political field called Left Field, I think. It would cost a bit I imagine for a stall, but it could help improve the image and profile of the party. And whoever the lucky volunteers were, would have a great time as well.Actually, we did used to go to Glastonbury.
SocialistPunk wrote:I know some members, I recall back when I was in the party, think that elections are ineffective, but in my experience they were a great way to focus branch activity. As well as potentialy gaining a decent amount exposure.I agree with that. In fact, apart from London, the only branch that has done this consistently is the North East.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am hoping to set up a small scale printing workshop, T-shirts, posters, artwork etc. If I get it set up (uncertain if we are moving house or not, will know next year) I would be willing to print shirts and posters etc for the party at cost price.Thanks, but you should liaise with Comrade Veronica Clanchy of Poole who likes to sell these sort of things but has to get them done commercially. She does mugs, balloons and umbrellas as well.
Anybody listening to these broadcasts can see that us and them come from the same stable. We both reject advocating reforms, we reject the lesser evil argument and we say that socialism (as we understand it) is the only way out. In other words, we're both impossiblists.Where we diverge is on two points:1. Over which is more important: economic power or political power? We have always argued that the capitalists own because they control political power, so the working class should be aiming at taking this away from them before taking over production. The SLP implied that the capitalists controlled political power because they owned the means of production, so that the workers should aim at dislodging them from the factories. We both agreed that both industrial and political action was necessary, but put a different emphasis on them, we giving priority to political action, they to industrial action2. Their blueprint for socialism which involved a "government" (their term) formed from and run by industrial unions (basically syndicalism) and with labour-time vouchers.I don't know that these differences would be as important today as they once were. We certainly have more in common than divides us, as the political broadcasts show.
Someone has just put this other SLP of America one on our Facebook page:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iulqp9xlCFg&feature=relmfuIn those days most workers in Britain didn't have a TV.
There's this from another Party forum: a political cafe in Clapham High Streethttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/spopen/message/15181I think the people behind the one in question are a breakaway from the SWP who seem to be investigating new approaches too (the breakaway not the SWP).Then there's "Socialists in the Pub" along the lines of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptics_in_the_Pub
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:'A Brainstorm on alternative propaganda methods'According to its organiser, Comrade Field, that's what the famous 20 October Workshop is going to be.
SocialistPunk wrote:the party is in worst shape now than when I left, with many on this forum thinking everything is ok.I don't think anyone on this forum has expressed the view that "everything is ok", have they? Some, including yourself (and me), have said that there is nothing basically wrong with the case we put against capitalism and for socialism, but nobody, surely, has expressed satisfaction with the slow progress we have made or said that the methods we are using to get our case across is entirely ok. How to do things better is what we are all looking for, but we need some concrete suggestions.Incidentally, I don't think the party is in a worse state than when you left (the 1990s/early 2000s). That was a period following the collapse of the USSR which turned out to be bad for us (people thought that socialism had been tried and failed) rather than what some of us thought would happen (people would recognise that we'd been right all along about Russia not being the way to socialism). So, these were lean years when we had to fight an uphill battle and when some members dropped out as they saw it as a hopeless struggle.Since the crisis broke out and, being honest, since the Occupy movement stirred things up last year, the atmosphere has changed: capitalism has become a dirty word again and new and former members have been rejoining. As I think you yourself said in one of your posts, if we can't make progress under present conditions we'll never make progress. We think we can. Which is why our Annual Conference this year voted "that a one-day workshop be held at Head Office as soon as practical for the purpose of exploring strategies to exploit the current dissatisfaction with capitalism". This has been fixed for Saturday 20 October starting at 6.30pm. Hopefully, all sorts of new ideas will emerge.
northern light wrote:ALB wrote:This is all part of the Great Misunderstanding on this thread of which you've been a victim like the rest of us. I had assumed northern light to have said that he held the same views on religion as Einstein and, as to me at least, Einstein's views (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein) on this seemed to be acceptable, invited northern light to apply. It now seems that he doesn't hold the same views as Einstein as, unlike Einstein, he believes in a personal "Creator".Hi ALB, Yes you have invited me to apply to join the party, and at one stage, I was on the verge, till I read what you said in thread 137. It quite knocked my end in. I am not used to this play on words
Oh dear, another Misunderstanding. But you seem to have got the sequence of events the wrong way round. My message 137 of 16 September was my interpretation of your message 87 of 14 September in which you wrote:
northern light wrote:From my perspective, nothing has changed. I can not, will not apply to join the SPGB., even though our goals and aspirations are the same.I still don't know whether or not your views on religion and "God" are the same as Einstein's.Over to you, Ed Paxman.
steve colborn wrote:The history of Socialist activity in the N.East, is truly astounding and meritorious.Wish the same guys were doing the propogandising today.Oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention the hours upon hours of radio phone in talk we had. Led, much more than ably by young Pat the rat Maratty. What a bloody good Socialist he was.I think of all my old N.East comrades, living and dead. Perhaps the modern bunch could take a leaf out of your book!All the fault of that guy, called Bobby Gleg. You left your mark on all Socialists in the N.East.See my post, on the thread about the Party, about trying to get things going again in the North East. What do the four of you up there think?
Since there are 4 Socialists here from the Seaham area and since at the last public meeting held by the North East Branch in Newcastle a couple of years ago there were 5 other branch mermbers present, what are the chances of organising another meeting in the area, to discuss local activity and try to get the NE branch going again?The meeting needn't be held in a pub in Hemworth but could be held on a weekend afternoon in some other type of venue. The last one was held in Newcastle Central Library.
Just read this in today's paper: "Einstein's 'God letter' goes on eBay":http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.htmlhttp://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-TOP-einstein-god-letter-to-sell-on-ebay-bidding-to-start-at-3-million-3882868-NOR.htmlSeems he'd pass the test to join …
northern light wrote:But I have never refered to anywhere to a supreme being. I will remind you again what I said ( if you want the whole lot, it is on thread 13) " I believe the Creator is the sum total of all the Universe, the Sun, you, me, your mother-in-law, everything that came from the singularity that caused the Big Bang. That is my belief in a nut-shell. I am probably wrong, but at this time in my life, the jigsaw pieces fit. " And for believing this, party rules prevent me from being a member !!But that makes you a pantheist ! And, insofar as (I assume) you don't see what you call "the Creator" as a person who intervenes from outside (the rest of) the universe (= everything) and who requires worshipping, you would be a "naturalistic pantheist".This is a respectable philosophical tradition which, according to the wikipedia entry, included the Taoists of Ancient China, Spinoza, Ernst Haeckel (whose 1901 popular science book The Riddle of the Universe was once immensely popular amongst materialists) and maybe even Einstein.In fact you are in advance of some of these in that you don't use the word "God". The German Socialist and dialectical materialist philosopher Josef Dietzgen started from the position that the world of reality is a never-ending, everchanging stream of observable phenomena, and it exists only as a whole (which I personally think is a good basis from which to start understanding the world). He used various words to describle this single unit: Reality, Existence, the Universe, the Cosmos, the Totality, Nature, and, drawn from previous philosophical discussions, the Absolute, the Good, Truth, even God.As I said earlier on in this thread, if that is your position then I don't see it is as being necessarily incompatible with membership of the Party. The only objection might be to the word "Creator" but then Zundap has suggested an alternative in "impersonal creative force". I invited you to apply to join and see what happens, but you declined. So we will never know.Incidentally, continuing the discussion, if you identify "the Creator" with the "Big Bang" then your challenge to disprove the existence of "the Creator" is a challenge to disprove the existence of the "Big Bang". Why would we want to do that since, at the moment, this is the theory accepted by most cosmologists (see: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html)? Some go on to theorise that the universe "created" by the Big Bang will end in the Big Crunch, which will then be followed by another Big Bang. In which case, something will have existed before the present Big Bang …. Interesting, but a PhD in astrophysics is not a requirement to join the Party.
northern light wrote:Hi DJP,I have already explained what I mean on an earlier thread, but I appreciate your reply, though not the scientific explanation I was seeking.Here the reply the Ftench mathematician and cosmologist Laplace is reputed to have said to Napoleon over 200 years ago:
Quote:"[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis."Reputed reply to Emporer Napoleon I, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter ("Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela?"/'But where is God in all this?').The exchange is reported by Victor Hugo (who in turn was citing François Arago as:"Comment, vous faites tout le système du monde, vous donnez les lois de toute la création et dans tout votre livre vous ne parlez pas une seule fois de l'existence de Dieu !"Translation: "How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"Alternate translation: "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe!"Alternate translation: "How is it that, although you say so much about the Universe, you say nothing about its Creator?""[Sire,] je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."Translation: "I did not need to make such an assumption."
