jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As a candidate, I would be surprised if you weren't in favour of contesting elections.As Clause 8 states, the Socialist Party of Great Britain … enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner …not the Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to make ourselves known to workers not trying to persuade them but to erect its banner and hope they are attracted by the clarity of our idea.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:the Party thus exists to persuade a majority of the population of the merits of socialismpersuasion rather than simply expressing the message is necessary since there is a mass of counter revolutionary propaganda of various formsI'd disagree with the two above premises: this comes back to the old question, is it our job to make socialists, or catch socialists? In my view, we are not rying to persuade, but to clearly mark out where we stand, and invite others to join us, when they recognise that we agree with them. The counter-revolutionary propaganda, in fact, makes simple, clear expression all the more important.
I really don't understand the appeal of this distinction. apart from as a red herring to real issues with a particular appeal to the more abstract propaganda-minded minority in the party. The same tendency arguing against contesting elections, and conveniently using 'catching socialists' to imply its not the party with the problem, its those pesky workers who just won't wake up (see also the Malcolm X quote above). First I heard the distinction was rather recently, and the only old aspect is William Morris answer that his policy was making socialists and that waking up one day in a socialist society was just a dream, the Dream of John Ball, and the dream of the abstract propagandist tendency.
For me the key passages are
Quote:The first of my proposals is this: I think we need to earnestly weigh up what is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to our existence as a political party, what constitutes our ‘mission statement’ if you like, enshrine the propositions thus identified, and then simply bracket off EVERYTHING ELSE as supportive and pertinent – but not crucial to our case, and thus NOT needing to be PUBLICLY ACCEDED TO by anyone wishing to join up. What are the core propositions of the World Socialist Movement? In my opinion, they are these: 1. What do we want? 2. How do we get it? 3. When do we want it? In other words, what are our Ends and Means? The answers, of course, are as follows: 1. Socialism/Communism; viz A world-wide system of free access to all goods and services provided entirely by people contributing their services of their free will in which there would be no money, wages, profits, national borders etc, and which would run along democratic lines and would permit the greatest possible degree of personal liberty commensurate with not causing harm to others. And so on. 2. Socialism/Communism requires the consent of the majority. Hence, we should endeavour to gain people’s support by whatever means possible. As a party, we should operate on a wholly democratic basis with complete transparency and without a leadership. Where we can and whenever we can, we should endeavour to gain political power via democratic means. Where it is not possible to vote for a genuine Socialist Party, e.g. China, local socialists will need to look at what options are open to them. But most certainly, an ongoing propaganda campaign (clandestine or otherwise) will be one of them. 3. The establishment of Socialism/Communism must not be delayed; in other words, we must consciously forego any involvement in reformist activity as this will only sap our energies and resources, and in any case, often prove to be futile (That said, what constitutes ‘reformist activity’ needs to be clarified: See more anon). In my view, it is imperative that anyone wishing to join the Party must publicly consent to these 3 CORE PROPOSITIONS. And certainly, if a member, by word or deed, demonstrates an intransigent deviation from these, then it behoves the Party to consider expulsion. I have no problem with that. In fact, I consider it essential. However, the corollary to this proposal – and I have no doubt that this will alarm many reading this – is that the Party should not insist on a prospective member consenting to ANYTHING ELSE. That means not insisting, for example, that he or she accepts a Marxist analysis of contemporary society, or eschews any sort of religious outlook. The Party itself could still have a democratically sanctioned position vis-à-vis such matters, but ought not to make it mandatory for members to accede. In other words, dissenting minorities on such matters would be TOLERATED.The Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed on the basis of the Object and the Declaration of Principles. These are the non-negotiables, we can confidently say the Object and Declaration of Principles are our core case.By contrast, rules, conference decisions and cultural practices, even long-standing ones, can be changed with members wishing to change them, openly expressing their wish to change them and then acting to change them. The second key observation by Andy Cox is
Quote:It is as though the weight of ‘doctrine’ keeps insidiously growing all the time. All because there is no tacit recognition of limits to which conference proposals may be invested with dogmatic significance. This proposal of mine would work in the opposite direction: It would give people ‘permission’ to demur and question within the parameters set by 3 essential and implicitly agreed upon propositions. Consequently, it could also make for better scrutiny of all ‘non-core’ propositions or positions taken up by the Party.Every year rules, conference decisions and cultural practices can be changed back and reverted too.For members of a church, rules are fixed, ordinary members do not change them, and are not supposed to or encouraged to question them, this is called dogma. We should take care to, and pro-actively, guard against this situation becoming the norm in the party. Our rules and practices should be temporal matters designed for the practical effectiveness of the party. We are a movement not a monument.
Well I think the Socialist Standard in 1913 was very prescienthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-101-january-1913/pace-killsRoads were not originally built for cars but the automobile industry lobby is more profitable than bicycles.
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.If there's no conscious and active majority then socialism is not going to happen. But do you think there's any good reason for this majority to not send delegates to parliament?
Yes where a parliament does not exist, a conscious and active majority cannot send delegates.
No, if there is no ballot box, then replacing capitalism with socialism would not be able to use a ballot box.Would the SPGB carry on activity forbidden or made illegal? Well, the question is who rules something forbidden or illegal? Marx's answer is the ruling ideas in every epoch are those of the ruling class.The SPGB getting involved in calls for democracy or sharing our umbrella, apart from anything else, could associate a movement for democracy with revolutionary socialism. We don't tie our wagon to them and they don't tie their wagon to us, a mutually beneficial arrangement.In 1908, F. C. Watts in Suffragette Humbug in the Socialist Standard put it best;http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1908/no-46-june-1908/suffragette-humbug"Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism."I've no doubt a dictatorship could cripple socialist organisation but the point is the SPGB/WSM is committed to political action (not discussion circles or reading groups either).
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"The SPGB would carry on propaganda as usual come rain or shine, democracy or dictatorship.The best people to replace dictatorship with representative democracy are representative democrats like Lech Walesa.The best people to replace capitalism with socialism are socialists.
