[Ed]

ALB wrote:

The result confirms our past experience that there is some relationship between our vote and the Labour vote, i.e that we do better in Labour areas. The South East is a solid Tory area with Labour in this election getting only 14.5% of the total vote. The combined Tory/UKIP (and UKIP are essentially Tory eurosceptics) vote amounts to 63%.

I thought we recieved a higher percentage of the vote in the south east than we did in Wales. 0.19% in Wales compared to 0.23% in SE. Unless of course we put that down to votes being cast for us in the SE due to the lack of 'competition' from left wing parties. In which case perhaps we did not convey the fact that we are not a left party strongly enough.

[Ed]

Socialist Party of Great Britain6,838 Seems to definitely be 5,454 + 1,384http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

[Ed]

Socialist Party of Great Britain 5,454 0.23% http://electionresults.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/south-east-endland-2014-european.html sorry wales wrong thread

[Ed]

I just hope that the new comrade in question was asked their consent before their membership application questions were posted here and on facebook.

[Ed]

Brian wrote:

Ed wrote:

But they have specifically said that they do not want essays in this challenge related to how to achieve their goals. They are asking people to refute that a resource based economy can actually work.It would be like us issueing a challenege to people to put forward an argument for "why socialism could not work" and recieving a response saying that socialism would work but using the electoral system is impossible. The response is irrelevant to the hypothetical question.So by all means write to them you don't need a challenge for that, but don't enter it in to this specific competition. It will be a waste of your time and theirs, they've made that clear.

You are correct Ed.  Thats what I get for jumping to conclusions.  Thanks for that and also for pointing out its an opportunity to keep the dialogue going by not entering the challenge but writting directly to the Lecture team to gain a response on the question of a political challenge.Hopefully, their response will at the very least confirm and clarify the reasons why they have decided that this particular revolutionary process remains undetermined. 

No worries mate. I'm just surprised nobody else thought to point that out I'm all for keeping discussion ongoing with them. Our public debates have been of mixed success. I'd only suggest doing them again if we could get get one where someone actually promoted TZM rather than positive money or the 5 star party. However we have made good contacts with some of their individual supporters through those meetings.You've spent much more time studying their theory than I have. Do they have a plan? I know they've made some suggestions in their films, sort of lifestyle choices rather than anything concrete and some suggestion that this could be made to work through reforms. But do they have anything definite that they actually advocate or is it more of a case of them saying "we don't know yet"?

[Ed]

But they have specifically said that they do not want essays in this challenge related to how to achieve their goals. They are asking people to refute that a resource based economy can actually work.It would be like us issueing a challenege to people to put forward an argument for "why socialism could not work" and recieving a response saying that socialism would work but using the electoral system is impossible. The response is irrelevant to the hypothetical question.So by all means write to them you don't need a challenge for that, but don't enter it in to this specific competition. It will be a waste of your time and theirs, they've made that clear.

[Ed]

We should commission our own translation

[Ed]

You're nothing but consistent L Bird, I'll give you that.This comes back to the other thread where you say that ideas are the primary motivating factor in societal progression. As opposed to ideas being the consequence of material necessity. I seem to remember calling you out for being an idealist in that thread. You've admitted it in this thread.The Electric Light bulbThe electric light bulb was created because……A) Someone had a spontaneous and brilliant idea for a new invention. Scientists pursued the creation of an alternative source of light to extend the working day in order to maximise profits.In a nut shell idealism vs materialism. Idealism = ideas being the primacy of ideas over any other driving forces at work. In this sense it is antithetical to materialism.Robbo asks "can you touch, smell, taste capitalism"I'd answer yes you can. In everything you taste, in everything you see and hear you experience the social relations of capitalism whether it is apparent or not.Is it physical? No. But can ideas manifest into physical reactions. Yes. Ideas or as I prefer and think makes it clearer knowledge (knowledge=ideas) are in themselves material conditions. Perhaps this is L Bird and I agreeing…. Perhaps what I am saying is his idealist-materialism. However where he is severely mistaken and what makes him an idealist is his belief that ideas alone create conditions rather than the other way around.Necessity is the mother of invention comrades……Not individualist geniuses

[Ed]

LBird wrote:

Well, I don't wish to be the source of any splits or expulsions……but… it does seem as if the issue being 'left open' is a bit of a fudge, given that it's such a central issue for a party that argues for parliamentary participation. The spelling out of the nature of that participation would seem to be fundamentally important; otherwise, why would anyone of either point of view join the party, if it might go on to embody a policy which they fundamentally disagree with?

I wasn't attempting to styme discussion of the subject in any way, merely to inform of the background of the issue to those who may not be aware. I think you have a good point about the pertinence of this issue. But as a fairly recent member of the party I can speak from personal experience on the question you have posed. I was actually unaware of the active road before joining. I think I can say with some certainty that I would still have joined the party. However, I would immediately resign if the party took the decision to act within parliament. As I would see that as a fundamental betrayal of working class interests. To not join or to resign because of a potential future decision is, to me, illogical. Rather to stay and argue against such a course of action seems the most appropriate action. If however, the structure of this party were different, less democratic, with a centralised leadership the position would be reversed. The fact that we as a party are based on one member one vote allows not only for differences of opinion such as between YMS and I but for debate and an eventual majority decision based on the merits of the arguments presented.I agree that this is a pertinent issue for another reason, that is, a decision made at the time of the party winning an election could cause another large split right when the party was gaining it's first bit of traction.

LBird wrote:

This is the polar opposite, it seems to me, of Young Master Smeet's view of parliament as a much more active factor in workers' political organisation. I agree with the 'passive' road, which I think is also your view, Ed?I hope other party members and non-members (like me) participate in this discussion, because I'm still unclear about much of this issue, and can only learn from a proper debate.

Yes those are my views. There are possible exceptions. For instance if war were being declared we would want to vote against that. But really that is the only possible exception I can see.

[Ed]

The party position on how socialists should behave in parliament is that they would abide by the democratic decisions of the party. So it is left open, an understandable position given that there may be unforseen exceptional circumstances. The question has been a very long standing bone of contention within the party being the issue of the 1911 split and being an issue raised in the 1991 expulsion. Probably the two most damaging internal events in the party's history.My personal views would be the polar opposite of YMS's. I believe socialists elected to parliament should either not take their seats or vote no or abstain to every piece of legislation. That is what I would argue and vote for in the event of the party ever winning an election.

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

I know I've brought this subject up before on this forum – quite a while back – but as I recall (perhaps incorrectly)  the responses it elicited tended to be somewhat non commital and along the lines that "we cannot speculate about some distant future".  Personally, I think there are some things about which we have to speculate – nay, more , develop a definite position in relation to – because decisions made now affect the course of action we take and so determine the kind of future we arrive at. The ends and the means tend always to harmonise to an extent.

Hi Robbo, sorry this doesn't relate to the rest of your post but I had to comment. Decisions made now do undoubtedly effect future decisions. That's the problem with idealism! Creating a plan on the basis of what we think now ignores the material conditions present in the future, which may be completely different depending on how long it takes. This would mean that socialists of the future may be acting on the strength of an antiquated idea, a complete abandonment of materialism. Which will inevitably lead to bad decisions.The DoTP is a very good example of an idea becoming so entrenched that it's advocates actually ignore the material conditions of the modern world in favour of a long redundant idea. We don't need to create more ideas, more concrete plans, which future generations will then lionise and make lore.

[Ed]

I'm afraid you've not really provided anything about the EZLN. You seem to be writing them off, for the crime of being from latin america. As if all people south of the US border are the same or all movements from south of the border are incapable of being anything but dictatorial vanguards, just because others have. I have no doubt that, that is not what you really think. But to me that seems to be the way you are reasoning your argument. It seems as though you are resting your case on guilt by association."They are just a nationalist  political organisation"Absolutely no question that this is 100% accurate. Just one of their many failings. Even worse than that they could easily be accused of ethno-nationalism. Even though many of their reformist demands also call for equal treatment for all Mexican workers and even though they recognise that the struggle against capitalism is an international one."who want to develop a national capitalist society conducted by Mexican corporations, and the Mexican ruling class."However, this seems completely contradictory to their stated aims. Especially as they are fighting against the Mexican ruling class and corporations."Their main concern is the so called neo-liberalism"It's true he does phrase it like this regularly. But it's also true that for the vast majority of the world neoliberalism is the only form of capitalism that exists, whether it be the left neoliberalism of party's like Labour or the right neoliberalism of the Conservatives. (insert any leftwing right wing party of other nations in their place)Rather than being closer to Leninist ideologies they are far closer to anarchists or autonmists. Utopian, certainly. But leninists? Again where's the proof? He was Maoist inspired in his youth. But surely since then the actions of the EZLN have proven that to no longer be the case. Silent, non-violent protests hardly conform to the Maoist principle of 'political power only comes through the barrel of a gun'. They have given up armed struggle for non-violent protest is it still accurate to call them guerillas?"The first ones that use the terms peasants are the Zapatistas themselves, the term also means agriculture workers."This was not really a challenge or a criticism of your comment. Merely a curiosity about your personal opinion on the matter. You're absolutely right that's what the zapatistas call them, and it annoys me immensely. I will concede that you have a far greater knowledge of south and central america than I. However, I feel your criticism is overly harsh, and focused on the wrong areas.Also 14th of June. Comrade, I had no idea you had so many years! You must have been knee high to a grasshopper.

[Ed]

Sort of related http://roarmag.org/2014/01/zapatistas-piqueteros-movements-power/

[Ed]

mcolome1 wrote:

The Comandante Marcos said that he is not a vanguardist, he must be joking, or smoking cannabis on his pipe, or drinking too much Zapatistas coffee,  because the whole Zapatistas movement is based on the concept of leadership and vanguardism, without that,  they would not be able to control the push of the peasants. The whole guerrillas movement in Latin America is a total failure including the FARC which are planing to sign a peace agreement with the Colombian government, and the peace talks are taking place in Cuba, they just want to do the same thing as the Sandinista and the Farcundo, which is to become part of the electoral process.The Dominican Republic is a clear example of the total failure of the focos or guerrillas movement, where most of those groups ( Castroists and Maoists ) were completely wiped out by the repressive forces of the state with the help of the US government and the CIA, some of the survivors of that movement are enjoying the benefits given to them by the capitalist state

Have you got anything to back that up, a source or something where they are saying that the peasents must be led? From everything I've read from them they speak very strongly against leadership. Subcommandante Marcos is merely a spokesperson part of the idea behing wearing the balaclava is that he can be replaced at any time by anyone. More of a concept, a figure head, than an actual leader. We had a conversation last year about whether our election candidates should have their faces shown in election adverts. With the phrase 'the party's case not the face' being used. One member suggested our candidates wear a paper bag over their head in the photos. A similar idea in my opinion. From what I've read by them it seems their organizational methods should be praised. It's their nationalism and refromist demands that should be criticized.Another thing as well are they actually actual peasents or are they waged agricultural workers? Do peasents really still exist, anywhere?:

[Ed]

Brian wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If we simply accept Gramci's hegemony of capitalist cultural dominance theory tacked on to the fact that Marx said that the ideas of the ruling class are the prevailing ideas of all society, there is no hope of socialism.Once more we are all in search of how and why and when will class/socialist consciousness spontaneous arise. Once more we ask ourselves how do we reach the point where the power of knowledge of the person behind the vote is used to get political power. i have no idea despite all the pat explanations that class struggle produces this consciousness for socialism …if it does it should be here now without any need for us in the socialist/syndicalist parties if we accept the premise of it being deterministic and automatic development of class dynamics. 

Class consciousness is not necessarily determined by class dynamics, or an automatic development , and even of direct involvement in class struggle.  If it were how do we explain the significant number who left the party and joined the opposition?  Does this mean they are no longer class conscious in every single case?But this only suggests we hold a very narrow definition of 'class consciousness' in that it equals a basic support for our case.  If we were to broaden the definition it would not only include ' the thin red line' but also some supporters of Zeitgeist.

I think this is a common misconception of determined processes, that there can only be one at work at a single time. Instead different determined processes exist and counterpose each other. So while the antagonism which exists between worker and owner is the cause of class consciousness developing, it is constantly under a barrage of suppression by everything else, but mainly by the fact that a market system is the only thing any of us have ever known. This discourages us from paying attention to the voice in the back our head telling us that there must be a better way. This is the reason that class conscious workers can end up rejecting what they know to be in their interests.I think also that class consciousness should have a very broad definition. When the idea that the market system must go emerges it does not always emerge with all the other ideas that we associate with being a socialist. For example internationalism or materialism. The rest of it has to be refined, worked through logically.and learned.That's my two cents on it anyway.(p.s. also I don't think it has anything to do with 'class struggle' unless we define class struggle to mean living within capitalism. One does not have to be a union member or have ever gone on a protest to be a class conscious worker)

[Author]

Posts