KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And James Connolly used the phrase as well:
The “labour fakir” full of guile,
base doctrine ever preaches,
And whilst he bleeds the rank and file
tame moderation teaches.
Yet, in despite, we’ll see the day
when, with sword in its girth,
Labour shall march in war array
to seize its own, the earth.That’s from Songs of Freedom that is. Dated 1907.
The SLP, under De Leon, had always been wrong on the union question. In 1896 they had set up “socialist” unions in opposition to the pure and simple unions of Samuel Gompers but they did give the working class movement such expressive phrases as “labour fakir (or faker)” and “labour lieutenants of the capitalist class”.
Who did done say that? It do be one of them Soshy blokes. Back in ’68. Knew I’d got it from somewheres.
Yeah, obviously the Scrotey isn’t referring to mendicant wonderworking monks. Just saying (badly) that is the derivation of the term (ultimately from the Arab word for poverty). The street or circus fakir used the “mysticism of the east” to sell his wares. Some even put on fake turbans and smeared their face with brown to give that impression. MW is an American dictionary and this supports my theory that the term “Labour Fakir” is a De Leonism. I question whether “fakir” used to refer to a seller of nostrums or a trickster was in widespread use in England even at that time. However, I do not have a handy Edwardian around to interrogate.
“Fakir” is I believe a De Leonism. Short for Labour fakir. A wordplay on fakir – popularly an Arab wonder worker (although a faqr is actually an ascetic Sufi monk). Sarcastically playing on the resemblance to faker as you say. De Leonisms. No one gets them. Because they’re shite. Or it could be a phonetically rendered cockney swearword. Which would be appropriate given his post Rebellion activities.
Oh yeah and Lehane was probably responsible for the pages of the EC minute book what have been stuck together. Something in there he didn’t like I reckon. That or someone found the Party porn stash. This is not so bad as it sounds as Edwardian porn shows naked lady ankles. Only gensec to have his name engraved on the party seal he was.
Howdy! Backslidery reformist trollboy here. No idea where the writer got their info on Lehane. Lehane was vocal *for* the expulsion of the industrial unionists. Indeed so much that he wanted to have the Bexley branch minutes censored (after they had been expelled on his jackboot orders). And when the EC refused to do this, he wanted to have them removed (expelled and shot) as well. His lot got the boot instead. Bit like the Peckham dispute of 1914-15, when a newsagent signing a petition against restrictions on paperboy’s hours led to everyone who wasn’t in favour of him being charged and expelled were themselves charged and expelled. And then anyone who wasn’t in favour of those blokes being charged and expelled were themselves threatened with being charged and expelled. And so ad infinitum. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t the editor of the Socialist Standard either. Anyway. SPGB dispoots. At least it weren’t about transies in the toilets back then. Have you got any transies? You could gender the toilets just so your jolly femmos could have something to talk about. The slightly nicer upstairs one for ladies. The slightly more unpleasant downstairs one for laddies. And transies. Unless they’re f to m. In which case, they have to go upstairs. You’ll need a toilet committee.
[spoiler title=”Spoiler: Reformism or something”]
[/spoiler]
ALB:
Isn’t this just a really good reason not to do elections? It’s all very well saying that a socialist representative would be answerable to the party, but, in real life, there are two problems. 1. Any representative is ultimately responsible to h** constituents, not just those who voted for h** – they are not party delegates. 2. It would be totally impractical for h** to constantly refer back to the party on every issue.
This would be a really good reason for doing the Sinn Fein tactic (recently rejected – I keep my hand in lad!). If the representatives are only elected for the purpose of closing the place down (I could go for that) then these sort of problems are completely meaningless. And surely that’s what they are, really, for.
Robbo
It’s not a matter of whether cops can be class conscious (or have socialist consciousness which is quite another thing altogether). Clearly they can. It’s what the role of the police is. This “radical transformation” of yours is a magicwand: “But in our not-semi-state, the police will be totally different.”
You clearly have not understood the idea of substitutionism. This has nothing to do with the class composition of the party, but concerns the existence of the party itself. Trotsky himself, naturally, never drew this conclusion. However, it is inherent in the ‘Party Idea’ – that the working class can be organised into a party.
KAZ
“In the interest of intellectual honesty, I should point out that, though we didn’t intervene in the argument between the ACG and CWO over the “semi-state”, our position would have been closer to that of the CWO. After all, we argue that the working class should take over control of the state (via elections and parliament), lop off its undemocratic features, and use it to dispossess the capitalist class and coordinate the introduction of socialism. You could even describe this residual state as a “semi-state” if you wanted (but we’re not going to as this is Lenin’s term). And of course, once socialism had been established, it would disappear, with any useful administrative parts being incorporated into the democratic administrative of socialist society.”
Eee! Well. So SPGB semi-state disappears. Like ferret up trouserleg. What happens if them democratically controlled and communally owned cops and tanks prove administratively “useful” to the “working class” (or rather to the SPGB members substituting for them “via elections and parliament”)? Call me a sceptic but frankly I’m doubtful, very doubtful indeed.
Do I find SPGB meetings extensively advertised on the Facebook group (the one I haven’t been banned and blocked from? No I do not. Case proved. “Discourage someone from posting in the future”. Ho ho ho. Open to all unless these fuck you off. Begins with c. Ends in t.
“Party sanctioned blog” – holy fucking Jeremy Corbyn! Now I remember why I fucked off. Too scared to take a shit unless the Committee has passed a (bowel) motion on it. Anyway, socialism for 12 year olds. No. Just no. I had one and the mere presence of the Socialist Standard in the house probably accounts for his raving Nazism now. That and his lame ass dipshit lefty mother. Since she’s now turned terf, he’ll probably be a she next week. However if you *really* must, one of the various graphic novels would be a good present for the average (non-fucked up) late preteen. The Rosa Luxemburg one’s supposed to be good. I wouldn’t know. I read comic books for fun. ZJW: Your suggestions are the worst I’ve ever heard. You do remember what being a 12 year old was like right? Can you imagine what the fat little shit’s face will look like when they rip off the paper and see…SolFed’s Fighting for Ourselves. “Thanks Unk. My best present ever.” On second thoughts – yes. SolFed’s Fighting for Ourselves. Highly recommended for any fat little shit.
Thanks for promoting this Mister Alan. I should say that Saturday’s meeting (anti-Corbyn) was well attended (even if the discussion came to be dominated by Kurdistan junkies – one of the penalties of the traditional meeting) – from personal experience I think this is almost entirely down to promotion on Facebook. Although the SPGB hasn’t got any public meetings coming up, I think it might well be worth you guys bearing this in mind.
AHS wrote:But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism.Isn't the logic of the above *exactly* the motivating power of common or garden reformism in the first place? Lordies! Why don't you drop the whole Upton Park thing? It's damn stupid – a hundred year old compromise that no one can be arsed to change. The defence of it ties the dozen or so members who actually understand it up in verbal knots not unlike Stalinists and their 'Dialectical Materialism'. If an SPGBer was actually elected (not beyond the bounds of possibility) its implementation would be totally impractical. And holy shite! Imagine the furore if they were elected for the right reason. You voted for Socialism. You got…Reforms. Despite what Robbo says, at least to Joe Average, there is no difference between voting for reforms and reformism. Either the ticket for the Full Communism Express or the pass to Reformtown and back.
ALB wrote:Were you ever in the SPGB?[/quote]Yes indeed. And what I am trying to do now is follow through on the aim and principles of the SPGB (not purely the D of P, but in general). Namely, is that aim, are those principles, in line with the adopted strategy – electoral politics? Having considered it thoroughly, I think not only are they incompatible but such a strategy is positively harmful to the cause. Of course, I'm also playing devil's advocate and doing you lot a favour by putting forward contrary opinions. No one else dare!
