[DJP]

I think it is essential to continually go back and review what was thought previously and to avoid getting sentimentally attached to old ideas should new evidence go against them.It is foolish to think that the socialist party is the source of revolutionary consciousness. It is equally foolish to think that these ‘Occupy’ camps will automatically lead to an upsurge in socialist understanding.As I said before consciousness is an expression of material circumstances. Therefore, there is as much to gain (in fact more) by communicating with people who are not involved in these camps as there is with those that are. Our gaze should be on the population as a whole not just a tiny minority who are making the most noise at the minute.As a group of proles (and some capitalists) who have come to the conclusion that the market system is the root cause and / or an obstacle to the solution of social problems today; we can help ourselves and others who have came to a similar position to clarify their ideas, and so push the direction further. In fact this is the only thing we can do.What in practical terms does ‘solidarity with working class struggles’ actually mean in concrete terms, in terms of action? In reality not much I feel.By keeping alive the idea of a non-market post capitalist society we are acting in the interests of the whole of the proletariat, this is the most meaningful act of solidarity we can undertake.In terms of action then, we should be doing anything and everything that makes our theories easier to be found by those who will know how to use them.

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The occupiers don’t need bloody leaflets or smart arses with all the answers or Socialist Standards — not even the totally brilliant and correct articles by Stuart Watkins — they need practical support.

I think the most worthwhile practical support we can bring to these is a knowledge of the possibilities of going beyond the market system. So Standards and pamphlets are one way of doing this.

Quote:

Really, what’s not to like? When members say, “It’s not socialist though is it?” they are betraying that they actually believe the old caricature – that the revolution isn’t worth starting till everyone’s read and fully agreed with their copy of the Socialist Standard, and that it shouldn’t start anywhere but parliament.

The party has never claimed that ‘the revolution’ can start in parliament without first starting in the minds (and therefore actions) of the masses. Both revolutionary and reactionary-reformist forms of consciousness can be explained by the contradictory nature of social life in capitalist society.Revolution is of course a process and not an event, but if the Occupy camps represent a tipping-point in this process I’m not yet convinced.

[DJP]

Some good notes. Perhaps your friend would like this article also:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysisMartov’s ‘The State and Socialist Revolution’ and Pannekoek’s ‘Lenin as Philosopher’ are historical texts containing good critiques of Lenin’s philosophical and political thought.It’s a shame that in the early 21st century there are still people taken in by this stuff…

[DJP]

Cesco wrote:

However, I am a bit pessimist about the outcome, since I see this as a middle class movement rather than a working class movement. I am afraid that the working class, in particular in the so called rich countries, has no bargaining power whatsoever so they won’t openly follow this movement.

I’m curious to know what you actually mean by ‘middle class’ here, please explain.

[DJP]

I wonder what they meant by ‘socialism’ however..

[DJP]

I think TZM could make a good discussion thread in itself. I pretty much agree with what you say about but don’t think it’s right to say it’s a child of the ‘reclaim the streets’ movement. TZM has its origins in the massive ‘conspiracy theory’ scene on the internet.There are plans to eventually update the worldsocialism.org site. The ‘forum question’ will be discussed by the EC though I think any decision will ultimately have to be made by the membership.

[DJP]

The internet dept has is currently involved in drafting some guidelines with regards to electronic meetings. Hopefully this will lead to more regular correspondence between overseas members.In the eighties there was a combined journal called ‘world socialism’ still worth looking those up.

[DJP]

Here’s some quotes from the article in issue 34 of Contemporary Issues page 111″It is just as mistaken to seek a purely social explanation for a psychological problem as to seek a psychological explanation for a social problem… when neurotic behaviour is understood to be the result of a disturbance in the sexual function, and when this disturbance is seen to be social in origin, then it must be concluded (in spite of the fact that Freud himself never came to this conclusion) that the way to reduce or eliminate neurotic behaviour is to change the structure of society…..”The jist of the article is the Fromm’s ‘desexualisation’ of Freud results in him calling on people to do nothing. Perhaps the same can be said of Reich, he thought ‘political’ problems could not be solved until all people where freed from their character amour.

[DJP]

 

Hch wrote:

You support workers defending and trying to defend their wages and conditions via unions. SPGB members do it themselves I am told above. But you oppose workers defending their social wage, such as NHS health care, benefits, education etc. You have drawn an artificial distinction between the two. Please advise.

We neither ‘support’ nor ‘oppose’ workers in struggle, what place does a party have patronising the working class by telling them what to do? We think working men and woman are wise enough to know what to do to defend there position within capitalism.The point is such things do not get to the root to the root of the problem, and this the socialist party should explain and demonstrate so that workers choose to join us in the abolition of wage-labour.

[DJP]

Thanks for the comments.For a start policy decisions are made by conference and not the executive committee. The EC is a mere dogsbody outfit which has to put into action the decisions of conference.I think a crucial difference is between that of electing delegates and representatives.Delegates only have as much power as is mandated to them and can be recalled.Representatives have power abdicated to them wholesale.The claim to be revolutionary comes from the fact that we advocate a complete transformation in society and nothing else.Hopefully someone can add more to this?

[Author]

Posts