KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I've put a smiley there to indicate that I am, once again, being a smart arse bastard. I was kind of hoping that someone might comment about the hostility clause. Clearly it works both ways.
Links to other organisations: I suggested that we also open channels to the SPGB. Chappy (who takes the Standard and thinks youse guys are swell!) shot me down in flames. It was kind of inappropriate as I can't see any of that stuff appealing to any of you in retrospect or even being allowed given the hostility clause. By the way, am I still entitled to be on here? I got wiped off the AFed's one asap.
Mr B: I am right in saying you are not (and have never) been a member of the AF? By the way, in reply I would say that the abolition of money (by itself) is similarly not freedom. But I am a pedantic wee gite.
The SPGB is different. Other groups sensibly dismiss anyone spouting this sort of nonsense as a troll, a flamer or just plain nuts. The SPGB engages with them to their heart's content. Incroyable!
Szaviels: Socialism is not about "removing corruption from government". It's about removing the capitalist class. And the problem with capitalism is not "funds going towards politicians". It's about profits going to the capitalist class. We actually can't predict how the revolution – the change from capitalism to socialism – will take place, whether it will be violent and sudden or gradual and peaceful. One thing we can predict is that a referendum of the sort suggested here, will (like the recent Euro-Ref) change nothing.
TG: Next Thursday okay for you? However, this one is about Socialsim which is quite a different thing from socialism! Not sure what but something to do with simulation. I think we're pretending that we're not living as random atomised individuals in a mad consumerist devil-take-the-hindmost free-for-all which is all going to end in some hideous apocalyptic disaster. It would have to be pretend since there has been no such thing as society since 31 October 1987. The Thatcher woman abolished it. Incidentally, nobody noticed but they got the initials backward during the real referendum. The UK just voted to withdraw from the UE – United Earth. This could be a problem if the Vulcans decide to invade.
This sitewww.historybits.com/thugs-thuggees.htmgives a death toll of two million, which is way up in the old "how many did they kill" stakes (it's poor quality so that figure is pretty dubious). More realistically, Mike Dash gives a mere 50,000.TK is quite right. Comparisons are odious. In fact they are a puerile capitalist rhetorical device to stop questioning of their norms?
Timmy old boy, you've got it in a nutshell. Clearly nobody noticed the sarcasm in "doubtless", which was supposed to guard against fruitless indepth speculation of this sort, nor the addenda, which were supposed to indicate that such a referendum would, in fact, be pretty much worthless. I thought my question was pretty plain but clearly I was not being brutal enough. Subtlety, like humour, is not big in the SPGB. I am posing a question about *democracy* and how we understand it. So once again:*Is 52% good enough?*
Mr B! Why you no post more? This very useful stuff, well researched. Most posters no good gobshites.
My understanding, contrary to SS's article, is that, in an Indian context, the Thuggee were ordinary road bandits, a product of the decay of the Mughal Empire. Their elevation to 'religious status' was part of a propaganda effort of the British to justify their reign of terror ('civilising mission') by dissing the 'backward' and 'uncivilised' 'natives'. The religious content was probably no more than the "good luck" associated with a black cat crossing your path (to take a familiar English cultural reference). You can read about this in Mike Dash's accessible and informative Thug. Religion (hindu, moslem ,christian or alleged thuggee) does not cause murder, real material circumstances do.
I believe that this stuff originates in Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, which I have just reread. Some of the statements in there do come across as pretty bad, temporary and explicable or not. The sort of 'assimilation' that Engels was boosting was the same as that practiced in Wales by the English. A whack on the knuckles and a dunce's cap for the little welshie and a spell in the cells for his dad. Speak English or suffer.Rather than get into one of those textual analysis debates, I'd like to turn the question to Sympo's question about whether a racist or homophobe can be a socialist.Surely there can be no doubt about William Morris's claim to be a socialist but in News From Nowhere the attitudes to women strike me as being very patriarchal.I think the answer lies with the way that socialists necessarily work within the context of their societies. One cannot expect the social attitudes of a socialist within a severely patriarchal or ultra-religious society (eg. in the Middle East) to be the same as those of a ''modern', 'advanced' society such as ours.Does that mean that we should tolerate the sort of offhand racist, sexist, homophobic shit that I have heard repeatedly in Party circles? Hell no.
Almost certain that MB never was in the AF or its predecessor the ACF. The late Bob Miller, MB's long time compadre, certainly was. In fact, according to hearsay, he wrote the AF's Aims and Principles (afed.org.uk/about/aims-principles), which bears traces of the SPGB's D of P. Though obviously highly extended to cover all the bases. Note the clauses about unions and religion. Incidently, there is no mention, even implicitly by the omission of "exchange" (as in means of production, distribution and exchange) as per the D of P, of free access or the abolition of money.ALB: I wouldn't say the AF doesn't like anarcho-syndicalists (it shares a sensibly small office with the SolFed). But it is not a syndicalist organisation itself (note the remarks in clause 7 of the A&P). The anarchism of the SCW was most peculiar and labelling it anarchist-syndicalist in the article's title might well be fair comment as well as being a way of distancing it from main stream anarchism. The change of title might also indicate a change in political allegiance of the authors.Incidentally, in relation to Punk's accusation that I am some sort of fascist, trying to close down 'free' discussion, I would point out that all of this nonsense, which stinks of utopian-idealism, is freely available to anyone wishing to criticise the Party. It is not just idle pub talk. The Forum, being internal, has zero propaganda value. At best, it is a diversion from this purpose. At worst, useful only to those who, consciously or unconsciously, wish to discredit the Party.
