Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So what is ok in the real world is not ok in the virtual world (redistributing uncritically the work of non-members and members of other political parties such as Kautsky) and what goes on in the virtual world has to be regulated (by the IC) in ways that we do not in the real world. Funny old world, the virtual world, isn't it. You could be forgiven for thinking that someone somewhere is nit picking because they have a particular axe to grind. Although I'm sure the actions of the IC in pointing out Vin's supposed breach of the hostility clause were motivated by nothing of this kind.
The interesting thing is how rapid the breakdown of the old Fine Gail/Fianna Fail, Tweedledee.Tweedledum system has been. The fact that they both might have to agree that the traditional choice between them is no different to choosing Coke or Pepsi, might leave them both with a huge credibility gap. I can't see any great number of "independents" lining up with FG. I think a more natural home for many of them would be alongside the "slightly constiutional" FF
My opinion is that the whole issue of social media, the use of the forum, etc, etc. are actually a bit of a mess and that one sticking plaster amendment to rules is not going to sort these issues out, but will only store up more trouble in the future. The use of electronic media and messaging is now of such important and value to the party, whilst also potentially being the source of massive discontent within the party that we need a root and branch examination of the whole issue, with the emphasis on ensuring party democracy. We also need to consider the members of the party who are not comfortable with social media, electronic forums etc. Tinkering with the rule book is, in my opinion, only going to make matters worse. As to the issue of quoting material on the twitter feed, I would argue that it is for the whole party to decide what is in breach of the hostility clause, not individual members of the IC. Is the party in breach of its hostility clause by selling (unedited) the works of Martov and Kautsky. I may be wrong but I don't think either of those two were ever in the party.
Perhaps the amount of time spent on "policing" this site is the reason the Internet Committee didn't have time to write even a very brief report on their activities to the democratic decision making body that is the SPGB Annual Conference?
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Of course, I realise that and it wasn't a serious suggestion but was one that would have been understood immediately by anyone aware of the history of the SWP. To spell it out, they were originally formed as the "International Socialism Group" and their slogan, on their publications, etc wasQuote:Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism.But I suppose not all members are Trotskyist-train-spotters or need to be. But at least it confirms what we were taught in Speakers Class that irony never works as people take you literally.
Irony works well when people are on the same wavelength and understand where you're 'coming from' but unfortunately most will know little or nothing about the SWP/IS…. or us.
Does this mean the party is suffering from an irony deficiency (walks away, hanging head in shame)
The European Parliament is a Parliament in name only, it has little actual power which is in hands of the commissioners.
I see this as really just an extension of the "EC of Upton Park" dispute back in 1910. The question as to what Socialists in Parliament would do if asked to vote on a reform, was answered in The Standard with " each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically". In a referendum the electorate replace he parliamentarians, so to me the answer would be exactly the same. With regards to this issue (The EU) I think the merits of either side are negligible and I don't think really that the working class have an interest on either side. I would argue therefore that in the same way as Socialist Delegates to Parliament might support neither side, so should the Party as a whole and that the appropriate thing to do is to abstain and pour scorn on those who take either side, especially those who claim to be Socialist. It follows from the above that there may arise situations where a reform referendum was held where the Party may advise voting for or against particular reforms, in the same was as outlined in the Upton Park Question. I could also envisage a situation where we could have an effective free vote, for instance if a local authority held a ballot on the colour they were going to paint the bins, I can't see the problem with individual Socialists voting for their own preference.
L Bird, I would never vote for you to go away, firstly I think it goes against the principle of an open platform which the Party has defended, often physically, since 1904. I think that principle is far more important than your ego driven rants on here. Secondly, such a move would in my opinion give you too much credibility. Once again your "let's have a poll about me!" move reveals your need to be in the limelight. Your attitude seems to be "it's all about me!!!" Can I suggest you grow up a little?
quote from another thread "I can live with those who, like Comrade Adam Buick, believe we have a duty to protect endangered life, such as wild animals, and are opposed to gratuitous cruelty,."With your talk of going fishing, is the mask starting to slip?
The main debate, in my opinion, is between National (relatively small capital) and multinational (relatively large capital). For those capitalists trading largely with the UK, the EU generates extra cost through regulation, etc. so they tend to be in favour of withdrawal. For Multinationals the EU provides a huge standardised market and they tend to be in favour of staying in. Historically big capital wins out against small capital, so expect huge propaganda in favour of staying in. In terms of the working class, the vote wont bring socialism closer, either way, so as a class we have no specific interest in the vote. I can envisage that some workers may feel they have an interest in staying in, for instance if your job is working for the EU, or if you are in a post funded through the ESF, similarly there may be those who think they may directly benefit from a withdrawal, Border Agency staff may envisage getting more overtime if we withdraw, but as a class we have no interest.
Hi AnarchoBlondeFirst question The EU was set up to favour the sectional interests of the a part of the capitalist class who thought that such an arrangement would be in their economic interest, in the same way the campaign to leave the EU is being largely financed by a section of the capitalist class who think that leaving the EU will have an economic benefit to them. The SPGB isn't concerned with the sectional interests of the capitalist class, it is interested in the working class and achieving socialism. The SPGB has since its formation in 1904, held the view that capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workers, therefore the only logical position for a socialist party is to opposes reformism, that is to say reforms of the system distract energy and attention away from the work necessary to create a socialist society, i.e.. spreading the ideas of socialism.Second Question No we would not describe ourselves as an anarchist party. We are a party that has no leaders, we are completely democratic, however where we differ from anarchists is that our view is that where democratic means to take control of the state exist in the form of a parliamentary system, then workers should use this system to take control of the state and then abolish it, rather than the classical anarchist approach of smashing the state from without. Our view is that the route we propose is likely to be the one that leads to least bloodshed and the highest possibility of success. There is no age limit to joining the SPGB and members pay what they can.I hope that starts to answer some of your questions, I'm sure there will be other members contributing along similar lines.
Hi Vin Pouring oil on troubled waters here, but I think that the problem here is one of interpretation of a word, rather than a real political difference. I think I see morality as much more a fluid concept than you. I don't tend to think in absolute terms but I can think of things that are what I would define as immoral. Without going into details too much on this site, but there were actions by a member of our branch recently that came to light that I would say were immoral, I don't say that they effected any economic interest of mine or even the working class, I just think they were plain wrong, and strangely I think they were more wrong because he claimed to be a socialist.ps I also think flagging any post of yours is also immoral
Young Master Smeet wrote:At Last the Truth wrote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling football team of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of social football at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant football team relationships, the dominant footballing relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."There we have it, we simply need to overthrow the ruling football team. When Boro[*] top the league, the workign class will be liberated. [*]Soon to be the only North East team in the Premiership, just saying like.[/quoteBoro topping the Premiership liberating the working class? I thought a socialist majority in Parliament was a long shot, but if we've got to wait for Boro to top the Premier, we may as well give up now
