jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:This article by friend Stuart (when he was a socialist) discusses one theory as to why workers put up with capitalism that has not been mentioned in the discussion so far: "dull compulsion"http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relationsThe original article by Conrad Lodziak in Radical Philosophy in 1988, on which it is partly based, is also relevant (though it doesn't seem to be easily available on the internet or interweb as YMS calls it).Here's the conclusion (of Stuart's article):Quote:We in the Socialist Party are often accused by our opponents, and even sometimes by our supporters, of not having made any progress in our 100-year history. What the foregoing arguments should have made clear is that it is not within our power to make the kind of progress demanded of us. The working class generally is ideologically indifferent, and accepts capitalism because it must. The only thing that can disrupt this to the advantage of socialists is, says Lodziak, ‘effective oppositional practices inscribed with oppositional viewpoints’ – in other words, the development of the class struggle. We can contribute to the development of this struggle, and we do, but it is not within the power of a small party such as ours to determine its course. The failure of sufficiently large and powerful oppositions to arise is down not to a lack of energy or dedication on the part of socialists, nor the absence of a sufficiently clever socialist advertising campaign, but to the power of economic necessity and state coercion.
Blaming economic necessity (whilst paying lip service to class struggle) is what Crump would call the economic determinism argument in the party. Economic determinism is the other side of the coin to utopianism. Both need jettisoning.
ALB wrote:Yes, a pity he couldn't. His opponents in the Socialist League really were bomb-throwers as this article from the October 1911 Socialist Standard recorded: … No wonder Morris felt he had to distance himself from these nutters.Agreed. Morris formed Hammersmith Socialist Society after the League, what stopped bomb-throwing anarchists taking over that. Just because it was too small to be worth it?
If Morris has developed more socialists and the league was democratic, then couldn't he have taken back the Socialist League from the anarchists.
Strike! Magazine November-December 2014 is outhttp://strikemag.bigcartel.com/product/strike-nov-dec-2014
steve colborn wrote:Welcome to the struggle!a minor point but I'm pretty sure he was already in the struggle whilst a non-member
Occupy Movement and the Zeitgeist Movement are movements of people with relatively clear objectives. Brand is one person with a public profile.
So Brand who has rejected 'class' in the talk last Thursday appeared on Jonathan Ross last night and said 'I'm not talking about some sort of crazy communist thing, I'm talking about democracy'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65pqQDLtbK0This isn't a criticism of Brand but for a 'sympathiser' to state 'he and the spgb are a perfect match' seems a bit off.
steve colborn wrote:Hi jdw. Do you really consider Owen Jones as "Class Conscious"? Not a very class conscious thing to do, join an overtly pro Capitalist political party like Labour? However, I digress. I have a lot of time for both Brand and Jones, even with his dubious links to Labour.Jones, each and every time I have heard him, has proved himself erudite and learned, with a grasp of anti Capitalist argument, plus the ability of the quick and clean put downs to the usual apologists for the system, (notwithstanding his Labour links). Bland, on the other hand puts the case in another way. More impassioned and emotive, and dare I say it, down to earth.The Party, IMHO, wouldn't be harmed by being associated, at this time, with either of these two. Owen would need to read up on the Anti-Working Class history of Labour and leave the con men behind. Bland would need to cut down on the theatrics and histrionics.You can be class conscious and not engage in the class struggle. You can see the interests of the working-class as extracting maximum reforms from the ruling-class whilst leaving the ruling-class in a situation of ruling.
I don't think its simply an issue of encouraging members to not be negative. Hence why I think the conference resolution in the 1990s about putting the positive case for socialism was stupid.If it was not being negative. then members would be praising Owen Jones, someone class conscious (which incidently Russell Brand explicitly rejected as well as defining socialism as 'sharing'), someone keen to vote and encouraging of others to vote and Owen is better informed.However, members don't praise Owen Jones. Why? Because of negativity? No, because he is a committed member of the Labour party, a party the SPGB is hostile to. So its clearly about the way non-members or opponents of the party are treated not just members being negative. Otherwise why would members be negative to Jones but positive about Brand? Whats the difference?
Anyone with a public profile might expect statements they make will come in for praise or criticism.Having acknowledged this, if members wish to publicly comment then members should be making informed (ie. not ill-informed), proportionate, polite, political (not personal or ad hominem) relevant comments and not verbally abusing anyone with the temerity to be critical. Something I don't think was done appropriately with Stephanie Flanders, Michael Portillo or Elizabeth Jones from Ukip.Most media personalities in demand stand to lose independence or credibility by attaching themselves to (or opposing) any particular party. Members ought to be realistic about this and not expect figures to jeopardise their livelihood. Meetings with figures as guest speakers are within the realms of conception too but this isn't for members to blunder an approach rather this is for campaigns committee to approach and arrange.
