paula.mcewan
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Adam says: “Anyway, that was their assessment of the position at the time. But by 1918 this had ceased be an issue as the franchise was extended then to a majority of the working class.”
No thanks to the SPGB. All thanks to the working class, and in particular, women – whether or not they had property.
Our position should be that the franchise is extended to everyone including 16 year olds, because revolution can only be achieved through the democratic process.
So, if I understand this correctly. In 1904, 2/3 of men had the vote. And no women. We advocated revolution through the democratic process. But w e were not in favour of the franchise for women because only women ‘with property’ would get the vote. Did we object to the 2/3 of men having the vote because they had property? I can’t understand this argument. Are we saying that we were (at best) indifferent to votes for women, because it was a campaign for only women ‘of property’ (whatever that means) to have the vote? What was wrong with women ‘of property’ having the vote? Given our understanding that there are only two classes in society – and 2/3 of men didn’t comprise the capitalist class – I still fail to see why the party was unsympathetic to votes for women. Instead of defending our position of 1910, we should admit we were wrong.
Well I might be alone here, but Bob Dylan is a brilliant poet, wrote beautiful melodies, and is revered as the greatest song writer of our generation. Ok he didn’t sign up to the SPGB, he flirted with Christianity, he can’t sing. But he loved his cat, he was quite romantic, and he spoke up for the poor immigrant. I can’t remember all of the Keats and Wordsworth etc from school, with their Urns and Nightingales and whatnot, but I’ll not forget Dylan singing about his love beating like a hammer, she’s like some raven at his window with a broken wing. If Glasgow Branch had “a bit of a cult” for Dylan in the 1960s – well good for that branch!
When the party was born in 1904, it was advocating revolution via democracy – quite rightly. But the party seems to have ignored the fact that some property-less men and ALL women didn’t have a vote at that time. Since then, we’ve opposed women having a vote (“a reform”) and we’ve refused to participate in any attempts by other parties to change the electoral system (“a reform”).
Despite the fact that we give one member one vote and this is a mainstay of our party, we are silent about the need to end the first past the post electoral system. We should have been, and always should be, advocating electoral reform. We’re not going to change society until capitalism gets democratic.
