[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I did it again and substituted skelf, another word i use for splinter and it got this Edinburgh person sounding like a Weegie…duh

That's odd, because the Geordie/Mackem work for a splinter is a spelk.If anyone wants to tell the differences between Geordies and mackems, there are lots, but the most obvious ones are that mackems drop their h's Geordies don't, Mackems put w's in certain words for instance Book becomes bewk and cook becomes cewk, get them to say super dooper computer, it comes out as Sewper Dewper compewter. Gerodies say Divvent for don't Mackems say Daent. Also Geordies have passports and Mackems don't (no European football since 1973!)

[Bijou Drains]

AHS wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism,  the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint.  The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. 

But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism. 

This is not the case at all, I don't want to rehash the UB of Upton Park dispute, however here is a link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League

[Bijou Drains]

KAZ wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

If Parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!

Legitimation. Persuades people they actually have a voice in running things. Less fuss if the slaves think they're free. The faith in 'actually existing democracy' is a really massive impediment to achieving socialism.

Your very answer implies that legitimacy matters, if it isn't apparent then its absence will be used against any social movement that seeks to create change. The fact that the slaves think they're free also implies that the slaves have a view of what freedom might look  like. The job of socialists is to expand and develop that vista, not to crush it.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State.

This article is more than interesting. It's a vindication of our interpretation as set out in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?, e.g. when the auhor David Adam says

Quote:

Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism. For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.

Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.

If parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!

[Bijou Drains]

Bijou Drains wrote:

So by this logic we should be expecting membership applications from Michael Gove and Jacob Rees Mogg any time now.

And Nick Griffin, he's got a face like a camel licking piss of a thistle

[Bijou Drains]

So by this logic we should be expecting membership applications from Michael Gove and Jacob Rees Mogg any time now.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

According to this test, i speak like a Mackem….just shows again…never trust the BBChttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180205-which-british-accent-is-closest-to-your-own

Just took the test and worryingly, so do I!!!!

[Bijou Drains]

Getting back to the hostility clause, I think it is something that we in the NE Branch have always taken very seriously, even when dealing with each other

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

The whole on his online book Practical Socialism; Its Principles and Methods (which Impos1904 made a copy of before it was taken down) is now online again. It includes his controversial view on law in socialism (for which he never found majority support in the Party).

Quote:

Introduction to Practical Socialism: Its Principles and Methods, 2006 What Socialism Means, 2006 The Myth of Nationalisation, 2006The Conflict between Utopia and Practical Socialism, 2006 Methods of Practical Socialism, 2006 Democratic Organisation, 2006 Socialism and Law, 2006 Organisation of Production, 2006 Information, Planning and Decision Making, 2006 Waste and Destruction, 2006 Advantages of Production Solely For Use, 2006 The Fetishism of Money, 2006 Socialism in the 21st Century, 2006

I'm not so sure I would use the term controversial, it is however a viewpoint I have been coming closer and closer to myself.Perhaps I wouldn't use the term law, rather agreed rules that are enforceable by the majority, if necessary.If you consider the current legal arrangements for people who have illnesses such as Dementia (Deprivation of Liberty Assessments), I would think that it would be necesary in a caring socialist society to have standardised and transparent system for ensuring that only those who require that their liberty is taken away, for reasons of their own safety, are subject to this requirement, in contrast to some kind of free for all.Similarly, if I had an advanced dementia, I would rather have the assessment which deprives me of my liberty carried out by a trained, qualified and competent individual, than have it decided by a vote at the village Moot, or the local tennis club.

[Bijou Drains]

kenax wrote:

nope, here for the first time. my name is Karel Kosman and my company's name is kenax, which i usually use as a username. you can search on the web for those names and you will see they are connected. i was merely trying to get the word out about my direct democracy site and thought it might be a useful tool for socialism as well. along the way got caught up in a good discussion. i plan to read the last two suggested articles. my main motivation is i've grown sick of the system and wars and just throwing in my two cents to try and make a positive change.

And just to say Karel that it is good to have discussions with people who are genuinely interested in exploring our ideas. The World Socialist has a long history of putting our ideas out in the public forum for discussionJust to add a little to that. You say that direct democracy is a good idea for the administration of what could be termed the "political" decisions which effect every one, why do we need to limit democracy to the political, who not expand that to the economic sphere.Why shouldn't the whole world's population be involved in deciding what happens to the whole world's economic resources.The car plants, mines and factories were not built by the individuals who now "own" them, they were built by many thousands and millions of people, the mines and the railway  lines, the power stations and the hospitals were the product of the many, why should their output and services not be controlled and directed by the many, rather than the few, who through the theft, violence and the threat of violence of their ancestors, through the expropriation of the wages system, through the modern day casino of the stock exchange, lay claim to the common product of all mankind?In short what is good for political decisions, must be good for economic decisions.To add to that our model of democratic control is reflected in what I believe to be the most democratic movement in the world, which was established by our founding members in 1904. You are welcome to examine any decision or discussion about decisions our party has made since its founding, we have no secret meetings, no unrepresentative cabals, no leaders, no hidden agendas. If you have the desire you can come to any of our meetings or conferences, executive committee meetings, etc. Nothing is hidden, all is open for discussion

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Part Two on the Chartists was ok too.I now know how to pronounce Engels properly (it's more like eccles than angles). 

Wally Preston would be thrilled

[Bijou Drains]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

I just had a DNA test and It emerges that my DNA make up is as follows:54% Irish – no great surprise there24% British mainland – again no great surprise12% Western European – Perhaps a bit of a surprise3% Iberian – Perhaps Spanish sailors shipwrecked off Mayo after the Armada?3% Italian Peninsula – Lots of Romans up in the North East manning Hadrian's Wall (which for the information of Southern based media does not mark the border between Scotland and England!!!)2% Greek – No bloody idea1% Georgian Caucasus – ?????1% Eastern European Jew, again no idea.The point is that we are all mongrels and  the idea that there are "ethnic Norwegians" is as improbable as the idea that there are "ethnic British". You spoke in one of your earlier posts about Vikings and the fact that they were ethnically European. I worked for a long while with families on the Northumbrian side of the Borders, Black and Blackmore (Black Moor) is a very common surname and there is lots of evidence that many families are descended from the Black legions posted on the Roman Wall, living there for centuries before the Viking invasions.If your going to start dividing people up by "ethnicity" then there are going to be bits of me scattered all over the globe, wouldn't it be ironic if the bit of me that is "ethnically" Jewish was my foreskin.

I'm not sure how to respond to this since it's self-evident to me that ethnicity is a socially-constructed concept.  I know that my Britishness is an invention.  But it represents a shared heritage and experience over at least centuries, and the result is a shared way of life and understanding of certain things, the components of what we call a 'culture'.  I'm not suggesting that that identity is to be preserved in aspic and is unevolvable, but nor do I think it can be disregarded as a factor in the direction that individuals and societies should go.  You are free to disagree and say that there is no such thing as identity, humans are mechanistic cogs and all that matters are the social relations and forces of production.  You're entitled to take that view.  I respectfully disagree, sir!

I don't disagree that having a culture is an important aspect of well being. I am not in favour of a homogenised Socialist Society, a kind of marxist McDonaldisation of the globe. However neither do I see culture as being necessarily tied only to ethnicity. In my youth I was invovled in pigeon racing and there is definitely a pigeon racing culture which connects those invovled in pigeon racing regardless of ethnicity or geography.There are lots of other cultures, there is an SPGB culture, there are drug cultures, music cultures, food cultures, etc. We all have multiple cultural identities at any one time. For instance I am a Northerner, which amongst other things, means I say thank you to the bus driver, I am also a pub goer, which means no matter what fracas is breaking out, I will always ensure that a person carrying several pints of beer is protected from the dreaded fate of spilling beer. As stated earlier I can converse with pigeon fanciers about the use of pot eggs and the widowhood system, as well as understanding the etiquette of ADM and conference. I was brought up living next to an Anglo/Burmese family and can make a very good bitter melon curry, my family are of Irish origin (mainly) and so I am also happy to have a conversation about the (remot)e possibility of mayo ever winning the Sam McGuire again, I speak Dialect Geordie to some of my friends using loan words from Romany (Gadgie and Charva, for instance) and I don't see any of this as a negative or a dilution from my feelings of self worth or my heritage.The fascinating thing about them is that although they seem to be immutable the fact is that they are all ever evolving. In my area the group of people who seem most likely to use Geordie dialect appear at times to be the Sikhs. I have worked with lots of people from immigrant communities in Newcastle who when asked if they were British will say no, but when asked if they are Geordies will say Whey Aye!

[Bijou Drains]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And once again this forum is being de-railed by those who are unable to rise above being baited. No wonder people like Ike treat us like a joke.

Joking aside, let me assure you that I do not regard the SPGB or its case in any sense as a joke.  I have never said as much and never would.  I take socialism very seriously and I maintain that it is possible and could happen.  My contributions are in the spirit of debate, nothing more.  I could be wrong.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I would have liked to see other contributorss offer their info on de-population of areas of Britain.Ireland another region that certainly isn't over-crowded once outside Dublin City

Am I to take it from this that you think a higher population is a 'good' in its own right?  I know you're just responding to an argument put by anti-immigration people, but I'm trying to fathom the logic.  Even if a country has lots of open spaces, how does that justify open borders or mass immigration, especially when it goes against workers' wishes?  Isn't there an argument that, first, open space is a good thing to preserve for its own sake, and second, open space is not necessarily habitable, and third, a higher population would put strain on space due to the need for supporting infrastructure?  These seem reasonable arguments to me, and that's before we even get into the arguments about ethnic cohesion and the problems caused by imposing diversity on people due to taking a purely 'economic' view of everything.You call this "racism", which I think is a made-up word used against workers you don't like.  Are Norwegians racist if they want to keep Norway ethnically Norwegian?  Can you not understand that the motivation to keep Norway Norwegian or England English or Germany German might have behind it something deeper than sentimentality and that workers have real concerns?  Such concerns, when expressed, don't make somebody a lackey for the local ruling class. Britain once had a modern population of 30 million or so.  I should like to see us return to that.  In an ideal world, I would like the entire country to return to forest and woodland and become wild, made up of a population of strong, independent people who can look after themselves and have little need of the state or money or capitalism.  Wanting less people around is not to say I think people should have less children, rather I think the priorities of the country should change.  We don't need incessant growth. Less people would be a better quality of life and result in a hardier and more independent-spirited people – who might be more inclined to ditch capitalism.  When it comes to population, I believe in quality over quantity.  I don't see the benefit of having more people just for the sake of it.

I just had a DNA test and It emerges that my DNA make up is as follows:54% Irish – no great surprise there24% British mainland – again no great surprise12% Western European – Perhaps a bit of a surprise3% Iberian – Perhaps Spanish sailors shipwrecked off Mayo after the Armada?3% Italian Peninsula – Lots of Romans up in the North East manning Hadrian's Wall (which for the information of Southern based media does not mark the border between Scotland and England!!!)2% Greek – No bloody idea1% Georgian Caucasus – ?????1% Eastern European Jew, again no idea.The point is that we are all mongrels and  the idea that there are "ethnic Norwegians" is as improbable as the idea that there are "ethnic British". You spoke in one of your earlier posts about Vikings and the fact that they were ethnically European. I worked for a long while with families on the Northumbrian side of the Borders, Black and Blackmore (Black Moor) is a very common surname and there is lots of evidence that many families are descended from the Black legions posted on the Roman Wall, living there for centuries before the Viking invasions.If your going to start dividing people up by "ethnicity" then there are going to be bits of me scattered all over the globe, wouldn't it be ironic if the bit of me that is "ethnically" Jewish was my foreskin.

[Bijou Drains]

kenax wrote:

additionally, let's just assume that these two systems cannot be combined and you swing the pendulum to the extreme, perhaps like the Soviet experiment. where there was still an elite, rich class, like the politicians, sports, those could by Tatra, the Russian equivalent of limozines, while the rest had to wait years for a crappy Lada. there would be a line-up two blocks long every time the state was ready to distribute another round of toilet paper. westerners visiting the country would be shocked to find out they had to pay $2 for each square of toilet paper from their hotel. meanwhile, every four years the population had the opportunity to elect from communist party A, or B, perhaps C. whatever form of socialism, why cannot the people submit their own ideas and vote on them also? under communism people were not even allowed to leave, because most would, considering that free enterprise leads to more efficient means of production and the people in the west were better off because of it. 

kenax, you are right to condemn the elitist system that operated in the old Soviet block, and  very insightful to understand that there was a n elite ruling class in that system, the World Socialist Movement first condemned that system of State capitalism in 1917! Just as we condemn the similar systems in North Korea, Cuba, etc.You imply that there is a pendulum between state ownership and private ownership and that we are in favour of some position aong that spectrum. However we would view all positions on that spectrum between full state ownership and full private ownership as different variations of capitalism and that no position along that spectrum can rid us of the evils of the capitalist system, just as you point out was the case for the Soviet system.Our position is probably very different from any organisation you have come across with the title Socialist. We put forward the idea not of state ownership, or private ownership of the means of production, but rather of common ownership.

[Bijou Drains]

The primary lesson of enquiries into abuse is that perpetrators of abuse will deliberately target areas of work where they can have easy access to vulnerable potential victims. In the 60s 70s 80s and 90s, it was the clergy, youth organisations, teaching, etc. in later years it has been spotrs coaching, the media and TV, etc. It now appears that the "aid industry" is the area tha abusive people are attracted to. However the key element is that without the economic vulnerability that capitalism creates much of the vulnerability that attracts abusers would cease to exist.

[Author]

Posts