[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.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I have reservations about the idea that socialism will come about globally in equal measures. There already exists huge differences in the likes of organized socialist groups, parties etc. Why should this tendency change in the future?

Because the various genuine socialist groups that now exist in various parts of the world are insignificant while most of the groups and parties calling themselves "socialist" are in fact nationalist to one degree or another. When genuine socialist parties of a significant size emerge they will form of a Socialist International to co-ordinate their activities on a world scale which will itself be in a position to have some influence on the spread of socialist ideas.Personally, I think the more reasonable scenario is to see a more or less simultaneous move to socialism in the more capitalistically developed parts the world, leaving only a few straggler areas to catch up. So it wouldn't be the case, as in Robbo's scenario, of an isolated socialist region surrounding by capitalist states, but the other way round. But who knows? Let's cross that bridge when, and if, we come to it.

Quote:

I thought that was the historical self appointed role of the SPGB and companion parties? To educate, and in a sense be the agents (not leaders) of change, because it wouldn't materialize out of thin air?

I wouldn't put it so grandiosely. More modestly, we are a group of workers who have realised that socialism (common ownership and democratic control of the world's resources) is the only framework within which the problems that the wage and salary earning class now face can be solved, and who are trying to spread this understanding amongst our fellow workers.While the change will not materialise out of thin air, it will materialise out of capitalist conditions even if we (or Marx) never existed. It's a question of a two-way interaction between capitalist material conditions and hearing the socialist case (itself of course also a product of capitalist material conditions). What we are doing is joining together as a group to do this more effectively and trying to hasten the process (rather than initiate it from scratch).It's others rather than ourselves who say that we think our role is to convert the working class to socialism by our activity alone. But it's never been what we ourselves have really thought.In any event, we have always said that it is the working class that will establish socialism not us. At most we would be the instrument they could use to win political power but even this is a bit grandiose. All we can say is that the working class will have to form a mass, democratically-organised political party. We may or may not be the embryo of such a party. We might just turn out to be one of its forerunners or of its future constituent parts. Once again, who knows? But whatever, today there is a need for an organised group to advocate socialism and nothing but. That's us.

[ALB]

Interesting. I see her father was Michael Flanders of the Flanders and Swann singing duo. Donald Swann was a conscientious objector in WW2, which would have been a better pedigree.More useless information from her wikipedia entry: "She previously dated Ed Balls and Ed Miliband."  It's a small world.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Is my response to be that, we will need to leave it up to the socialists then to decide what course of action to take?While I fully accept the idea that if that were to happen the exact circumstances would dictate the approach, but if I were to simply come out with a weak answer such as that, I know I would be laughed at.In my discussions over the years I have never made it that far. It is hard enough trying to get people to grasp the idea of a world without money, borders and leaders in the first place. But if I had, it now appears to me that I would have been left looking like a stereotypical hippy, "Wow man, don't get too heavy, it will all work itself out in the end man, the people will find a way."

But is it really such a weak answer?. I've just listened to Ed "One Nation" Miliband being questioned about what a Labour government will do about taxes in their first year in office if they are elected in 2015, to which he replied that this will depend on the circumstances they inherit. Which of course is all he could say since, if he entered into details, he could be giving a hostage to fortune. It doesn't strike me as an unreasonable answer and that's about events in two or three years time.So, how much more reasonable is it for us to reply "it will depend on the circumstances" and "it will be up to the socialist movement to decide democratically at the time" when we are questioned about what we think should happen in a hypothetical situation that may or not arise in say (unfortunately) 30 to 40 years.

SocialistPunk wrote:

So imagine if I am discussing the SPGB (and companion parties) goal of capturing political power from the capitalist minority using parliamentary democracy.So I say this is needed in order to take the power away from the pro capitalist state, legitimizing the movement, using their own institutions of democracy against them, reducing the ability for the capitalist minority to be able to fight back etc. So I am asked about the possibility of one or a handful of countries arriving at this point earlier than the rest. Is my response to be that, we will need to leave it up to the socialists then to decide what course of action to take?

Basically, yes. But you could also question how likely it is "of one or a handful of countries arriving at this point earlier than the rest."  We know that capitalism continues to exist not so much because the capitalist class control state power as because the majority of people are imbued with capitalist ideas. They don't think it possible to have a society without leaders or armies or buying and selling or working for wages. This view is widespread throughout the whole world.How likely is it when people begin to reject this that this will be confined to people in just "one or a handful of countries"? Not very likely, I suggest, especially as even now under capitalism ideas, music, etc spread very quickly from one continent to another.So, I think it quite reasonable to reply, as in the Questions of the Day pamphlet, that the situation is unlikely to occur but that if it did it would be up to the socialist movement at the time to decide what to do.This applies to all sorts of other hypothetical questions such as "what if the ruling class suspend political democracy?". "what if there's only a 50% + 1 majority?", etc. After all, it is not the SPGB that is going to establish socialism but the working class,

[ALB]

Yes, he did write some good stuff. He was a pioneer of identifying the ecological crisis of our time as being due to capitalism and its profit-driven economy. We took on board his views in our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet:

Quote:

Ecology is concerned with the circulation of natural materials and with ensuring that these should be extracted, transformed, consumed and decomposed in such a way as not to upset the balanced functioning of the biosphere. Capitalist economics, on the other hand, is concerned with the circulation of products, not as useful things made from natural materials, but only as goods to be sold on the market at a profit. It is clear that, with such an economic mechanism governing production, no adequate account will be taken of the ecological consequences of which materials to use and which methods to employ in doing so.No proper account will be taken, for instance, of whether a material is scarce or abundant, nor of whether it is renewable or non-renewable, nor of whether its extraction will upset the ecosystem or ruin the environment, nor of whether its transformation or its consumption will release dangerous substances into the biosphere.Barry Commoner, in his book The Closing Circle, listed the sort of criteria that would have to be taken into account from an ecological point of view in making such choices:

Quote:

“For a rational decision about the need for displacing cotton with nylon, we should compare the two materials with respect to: energy requirements for production, and the resultant air pollution; environmental impacts due to production wastes such as pesticides, fertilizer, and chemical plant effluents; durability of the products, and the environmental impacts incident to maintaining them (e.g., laundering, ironing). From such an assemblage of facts, a rational strategy for using these alternative products could be worked out. For example, if the analysis were to show that cotton is generally more socially valuable than nylon, except that cotton requires ironing while nylon does not, it might prove useful to design non-ironing cotton fabrics, or even to develop and encourage clothing fashions that no longer call for ironed fabrics. What is important is that the relative benefits and costs associated with the alternative products be made explicit, so that a rational social choice can be made” (Knopf, New York, 1972, p.314).

Under capitalism, however, in this case as in all others, the sole deciding criterion is the minimising of the amount of human labour incorporated in the product. This is an economic law of capitalism ruthlessly imposed by the imperative of competition. Any enterprise which decided to adopt a more ecologically sound, but more expensive, production method would become uncompetitive and so would eventually be eliminated from the competitive struggle for profits.

Bit surprised,though, to see Ian Angus describing himself as an "ecosocialist". He's the same Ian Angus who criticised the old SPC for not adopting Bolshevik tactics during the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike (see the thread on this).

[ALB]

What was the turn-out?

[Author]

Posts