[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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?

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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 …

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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."

[ALB]

Looks as if the Muslim Debate Initiative (whoever they are) take the same sort of line as us on debating the far-right:http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/10/03/press-release-an-mdi-response-to-those-in-opposition-to-holding-a-debate-with-the-edl/In any event, they don't agree with the SWP, UAF, etc's policy of "No platform for fascists".I hadm't realise that all this is recent (this week). If we want to mount a publicity stunt we could offer to chair the debate between the MDI and EDL on our premises.That would be publicity both for us and for our stand against the Trotskyist censors and for free debate.

[ALB]

Interesting that somebody else should be taking the same line as us on "free speech", including allowing the far-right to express their views, with a view to them being demolished in the course of free examination, discussion and debate.One of the items for discussion at this year's Autumn Delegate Meeting is:

Quote:

The Party has a tradition of organizing debates with opponents of all political stances, no matter how challenging. We propose therefore that the Party approach the far right of which the English Defence League would provide us with the most political capital.

Kent & Sussex Branch see this as a publicity stunt which, even if it did not take place in the end, would still raise the question of free speech and our support of it.In their supporting statement they say that one

Quote:

reason for targeting the EDL specifically is their willingness to debate anyone, which they have stated many times.

If they have said this, then we should definitely take up their challenge just to show that we are prepared to take them on. We can't allow them to get away with saying that they made such a challenge but nobody took them up.But can someone provide a reference to where they've said they're prepared to debate anyone?

[ALB]

As it happens the big expert in Britain on televised election debates is a former Socialist Party member, Steve Coleman. Here he is on the 3-way debate at the last UK general election:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ymx1pNote that, while his findings might be interesting, he fails to make the point that what's wrong with these debates is that they are between rival leaders seeking a following.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left.

What was it you put to the North East branch? Was it a criticism of our policy or simply of our methods of putting it across?There may only be 300 members in the Party, but decisions as to what we say and do are made democratically and can only be changed democratically.  In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.The one about socialism being a moral or ethical issue as well as a class issue is more evenly balanced. Some members have been arguing this since the 1950s and, for a few months in 2010, it was even the Party's adopted position. So that could well change. But only democratically.In either case, adopting what is the minority position is not a bar to membership. It also depends on how important you think the issue is compared with putting over the basic case for socialism. Robbo obviously thought the religion issue so important as to resign from the Party and campaign against us over it. That's his prerogative and an indication of his priorities.If your criticism is only of how we operate this an open question and there is a wide range of opinion in the Party over this. Once again, though, things can only be changed democratically (though as we are not a centralised top-down party there is already plenty of room for branches and even individuals to do what they think best.) That's the way we work. In any event, those who want us to try something different will have a better chance of convincing a majority of us if they are already one of the members.

[Author]

Posts