jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Elsewhere in a topic on non-members I postedWhat do you think the opening of Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto means? Or warns against? Or was this an error of Young Marx.
Quote:In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.The answer from YMS was
Quote:We don't idolise Marx & Engels,the above is a tactical suggestion, we've chosen different tactics, we are decidedly partyists, in preference to the tyranny of structurlessness and also our specific focus upon the conscious acceptance of socialist ideas.to which I replied
Quote:Sorry but the Communist Manifesto is decidedly partyist, not in favour of structurelessness and focused on the conscious acceptance of socialist ideas. I don't think it is idolising Marx to challenge some of your comments in your above statement about the passage from Chapter 2.You' might be focusing on 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.' whereas you should be looking at it in the context of the preceding statement 'In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?'.In what relation do you think the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? Or is there no relation? Is the party on its own plane of existence?Surely Marx was not a proto-Bolshevik or Labourite by 1848?
I'd be happy with a party-wide convention of referring to names by initials if it meant branch minutes were published online.
Then omit the names or use initials etc. Available on request is not as available as 'freely available' as ex-wives or ex-husbands might testify to.
The question isn't why non-members running stalls don't become members, but who will bring socialism? Surely its not just members or the party teaching the class?
Incidentally if you scroll to the bottom of any page on this website you can see at the bottom right (and small at the very bottom) the F. C. Watts logo from the Edwardian era still looking great. I'm not even a fan of the redesign of this from 2014, which makes the text look too pointy especially the slogan 'the world for the workers'.
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Are you happy with non-members as supporters running party stalls?Maybe or maybe not. All depends who it is.
I quite like this pragmatic approach.
What did comrades think of the show (http://www.mixcloud.com/davidallen3139/hello-everyone-once-again-insight-was-a-radio-show-with-action-elizabeth-from-ukip-had-her-chance/) from 29 September?
I kind of agree with Lbird insofar as non-members joining in any great numbers would change the nature of the party, and I'd add it would probably be in a positive way.What is the 'fullest possible range of party activities'? Are you happy with non-members as supporters running party stalls? Or the party hearing formal complaints from non-members about their treatment by party committees? etc. Anyway question is rhetorical and food for thought.
Yeah the rich exploiting the poor is unfair, said the very very rich man. What a completely nasty piece of work Bono is.
I'm possibly not understanding here or (particularly in the case of open primaries), imagining a different implementation than you are.As for party membership being more important than votes and the party structures becoming the mechanism for direct democracy, if ever there was a recipe for a new Nomenklatura this was it! Suffice to say, I disagree with you although it would be nice to see the House of Lords get the boot.
Looks like I stand corrected on a response to Walford. I've read Walfords writing and a question from him can be heard on one of the audio files of an older meeting on here. I wasn't necessarily persuaded by his analysis but he didn't seem infuriating, I worry that some members regard any persistently critical non-members as infuriating as has sort of been alluded to in respect of Lbird.As for 'In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?' saying the conception of the party that we are a part doesn't really satisfy me but its two different conceptions of the party (Lbirds may be a third conception of the relation). Why does a socialist party arise? The class struggle? How is the socialist party accountable to the class, or why should it be accountable only to members where policy would not be adversely affected?It might be one for the Marxologists but I don't think Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto makes Marx out to be a proto-Bolshevik or Labourite. Sometimes I wonder if this is an attempt to defend the (perceived) status quo of the party organisation at this moment at any cost. There can be a party that has the same interests without adopting mistaken ideas that happen to have support of the working-class.As for 'no other party acts in such an open way' I wonder if this isn't just a shibboleth repeated without interest in other parties? What is the Pirate party's interest in transparency for example? Boasting of all meetings being open for discussion is something to be proud of, but certainly isn't an argument for this being the historical limit of participation. We should be proud but not complacent or satisfied with the organisation.
Parliament involves registering the party with the state (and meeting certain requirements) and having voters register with the state! Open primaries may require voters to register with the state in the United States but you could register supporters of the party with the party alone with a valid address in the UK and post out the ballot. I (and we both) wholeheartedly disagree but I don't want to derail this topic.
