[robbo203]

twc wrote:

All explanatory science is deterministic.  If science lacks determinism it can’t explain anything.Determinism is how we grasp in our minds the necessity of processes in the external world—it’s our comprehension of how processes unfold in the external world.Now the world’s processes are themselves necessarily contingent—they are constrained by the circumstances they find themselves in.  This is the common condition of daily life.It is thus impossible for a purely theoretical grasping of a necessary process to reveal, in and of itself, the inevitability of the process.  In other words determinism is not inevitability.

 Part of what you say here is true enough, TWC: "All explanatory science is deterministic" (although, is there such a thing as a non explanatory science – all science seeks to "explain").  What then is determinism? Determinism has to do with the relationship between events in terms of cause and effect.  If I put a pot of water on a gas fire then I can predict that sooner or later the water will boil.  The predictability of this outcome allows us to say that in a certain sense it is inevitable.  If it was not inevitable  – if it was also possible that the water might turn into ice if heated up on a gas hob – then how would science be able to explain in deterministic terms? There are certain regularities in the  world around us that permit us to predict and therefore to confidently assert that should one event occur then it is inevitable that another will be its outcome. Adding heat to a pot of water will inevitably cause the water to boil This is not fatalism. Fatalism is a teleological religious  concept – that the future is predetermined.  Teleological determinism is different from mechanical determinism and when we are talking about science we are alluding to the latter.   With the former, the future determines the present in the sense that it steers our actions towards what is already planned for us; with the latter that past determines the present in the sense that Hume meant when he declared in his "Treatise of Human Nature"  (1739), that the "The cause must be prior to the effect" The only way in which you can maintain determinism is not inevitability is if you accept the position the position that high order events are not "reducible" to lower order events even if they supervene or depend on them.  To put this more concretely it is not possible to explain,say,  our thought processes simply in terms of neurons firing in the brain. Yes we are enabled to think as a result of those neurons firing but that is not the same as saying our thoughts can be explained by the latter Mechanical determinism in its full sense seeks to explain every event in the universe in terms of some preceding and direct cause (s) where each of these causes is also an effect, having its own set of relevant  causes such that the totality of these causal connections constitutes  a “causal chain” or  a “causal tree”.  Ultimately, given Hume's diktat that the cause must be prior to the effect what this means is that in principle everything that we see or experience can be reduced to, or explained by,  the gyrations of atoms or probably not even that  but something like subatomic particles.  What prevents us from doing this is merely our partial comprehension of the "causal tree" but the more science advances, the more does it fill in the gaps so that in principle one day in the remote future we will have a complete understanding of everything.  At least thats what the theory states This is straying a bit from what this thread is about so I want to focus now on making the connections. You can perhaps  see from what I've written above why I have strong reservations about the term "scientific socialism". These reservations are grounded in my understanding  of what science is about  and the inherent limitations of scientific explanations and my rejection of reductionism.  Contrary to full on mechanical determinism, high order events cannot ultimately be reduced to lower order events and the whole idea that that there exists a complete " causal tree"  connecting every event in the universe within a vast nexus of causal interconnections that is in principle discoverable is based on a complete illusion. Just to make it clear – I am not repudiating science. Of course science is a necessary and vital part of our understanding of the world around. Of course there are demonstrably deterministic relations of cause and effect that can be explicated in scientific terms and it is quite right that science should seek to do this. But alongside the principle of determinism there is also the principle of indeterminism which needs to be acknowledged The problem with the term scientific socialism which some  in the SPGB seem to be embrace with a certain fervour is that it presumes too much.  Science is about causality, tracing out patterns of cause and effect.  How does this transfer over to the project of establishing socialism and the notion that workers should democratically and consciously choose to bring about socialism? This idea of choice sits uneasily with the idea of determinism. What does this determinism consist in which justifies the qualifying term "scientific" in "scientific socialism" – otherwise there would be no point in using the expression scientific socialism at all if it did not imply a deterministic point of view,  What is being determined? How does capitalism "cause" socialism to come about? The materialist conception of history requires scientific socialism, in order to  justify its claim to be scientific, to posit a causal relation relationship between the economic base and society's superstructure . So for instance in the German Ideology it is asserted that "Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking."(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm) The problem with the whole line of argument is that there no such thing as a a process of material production that does not involves human beings thinking – ideology.  One can just as legitimately say that the development of their material production likewise no longer "retains the semblance of independence".  Material production is dependent upon humans thinking just as human beings thinking is dependent on material production.  So where then is the causal connection that would generate a predictable outcome? You mention contingencies.  We talk about socialism being established through class struggle but there are other factors that work against  that – from nationalism which seeks to suppress class identification within the pseudo community that is the "nation" or intra-competition with working class over things like jobs and promotion prospects.  One of my long standing gripes with the SPGB is that by asserting that socialism is purely a matter of  "material self interest"  and not also a question of , foir example, moral outrage at what capitalism does to us, is that this plays directly into the hands of capitalist ideology.  After all, it would be in my self interest to stab my fellow workers in the back as I climb up the greasy pole of career advancement would it not? Self interest could very well enjoin me to turn my back on my fellow workers and to adopt the posture of "I'm alright Jack and sod the rest of you". But there is this current of opinion within the SPGB that still peddles this "material self interest" of line argument  which repudiates any kind of role for altruism and morality in the struggle to achieve socialism.  It is a view which unconsciously echoes Adam Smith atomistic/mechanistic concept of the invisible hand of the market  whereby individuals in pursuing their own self interest inadvertently serve the interest of the general public. Smith's view of economics ties in with Newtonian science and the laws of gravity that act as an invisible force upon objects in the world – like the Marxian law of value.  In some  ways the SPGB is still tied down to this classical paradigm of science  and nothing better illustrates this than its attachment to "scientific socialism" 

[robbo203]

Darren redstar wrote:

I think it is important to recognise that the Labour Party is our political enemy. And, in the context of the past 20 years of the actions of that party in power and official opposition, it is hard not to see anyone who happily remained a member of that party as a active opponent of any concept of socialism..

 I can recall years ago when I was a member of Guildford Branch that there was a couple who fairly regularly attended our branch meetings.  They were members of the Guildford Labour Party but also enthusiastically endorsed the SPGB's concept of  socialism.  You might say they were misguided but it would not seem reasonable to call them anti-socialists, actively opposing any concept of socialism. To me it is absurd to suppose that the SPGB and its companion parties is the sole repository of socialist thought. There are far more socialists outside the WSM than in it – far more – and I would add to the list Alan has provided people like the Left Coms who have our conception of socialism too.  Actually, that is a reason for rejoicing.  If capitalism's development thus far  with all its crises and problems has only been able to deliver a total population of 350 odd socialists out of a global population of  7 billion then I would say socialism is completely dead in the water and we might as well all pack it in. Not only that, the SPGB is one third the size it was back in the 1940s so socialism would appear to be even less on the cards now than it was back then if this argument held any water. (So much for the predictive power of TWC's  "scientific socialism").  But that is a false way of looking at that matter because the categories themselves are fundamentally questionable: socialist consciousness is a matter of degree. This is to say nothing of people refused membership of the SPGB on the ridiculous technicality that they hold some religious belief (not even Marx advocated such a policy for the First International) – even though they demonstrably want and fully understand what is meant by socialism and how to achieve it.  That is the sole criterion of what should constitute a socialist yet for some perverse reason the SPGB seems intent on wanting to shoot itself in the foot, cripple itself and impede it own growth by this self  imposed and totally redundant/unnecessary  restriction on membership.  One wonders how many socialists it has turned away for this reason over the years , let alone those who did not  bother to apply when they learnt of this ridiculous anachronistic rule. Some comrades in the SPGB seem to be in state of complete denial about the appeal of real socialism outside  the hallowed circle of the  party membership

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Of course none of this means anything to you.  You flatly deny the predictive force of scientific socialism and you effectively repudiate its deterministic scientific status.  From your angle, the party’s socialist platform and rationale are decidedly not scientific.  They are fundamentally matters of pure opinion.

 So I take you think socialism is inevitable then.  Perhaps as a..er… "scientific socialist" you might care to furnish scientific proof of  this that goes a little further than what appears to be a matter of pure opinion on your part. Marx repudiated Hegelian teleological thinking as just speculation.  You seem to have embraced it with a kind of religious fervour

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 "Guns blazing"?  What are you on about; been watching too many Westerns, Robin?   Look, it's always been 'horses for courses' but when one's dealing with a quasi-religious phenomenen it matters little which approach is taken when confronting those who find the allure of a 'pied-piper' quite irresistible.  Ask the party member whose spouse was totally unconvinced by laid-back, calm and reasoned argument and ended up joining the Labour Party in the days following the coronation of King Corbyn.

Its a metaphor, Dave, for a heavy handed tactless approach to political opponents which fails to discriminate between them or adapt one's argument to the political opponent in question.  And since you've introduced another metaphor into the discussion (and  talking of "horses for courses") I'll wager a bet  that far from it  mattering little" which approach is taken when confronting those who find the allure of a 'pied-piper' quite irresistible"., it matters an awful lot.  You keep on telling them that there is no difference whatsoever between Corbyn and Cameron and I guarantee they will blank you out for good and come to think the SPGB is just completely divorced from reality.  (BTW you did not tell me how many of those 24 things that Corbyn believes in, Cameron also believes in). Look you've got to think tactics, Dave. A blunderbuss approach is not going to do it.. I agree with SP when he said in an earlier post that an intelligent approach is needed . That means acknowledging that not everything your opponent says is nonsense or undesirable. As for the example of spouse of the party member you refer well this hardly constitutes evidence against making a "laid-back, calm and reasoned argument" , does it? Imagine if the member in question had lambasted Corbyn as no better  than  and  no different to, Corbyn.  I imagine that not only would the spouse have joined the Labour Party anyway but is more likely to remain in the Labour Party once Corbyn starts to disappoint as he assuredly will. A reasoned approach that at least acknowledges some of the good things that Corbyn has said is far more likely to convince precisely because it gets to the heart of the matter – that Corbyn will fail despite his good intentions  And you cannot demonstrate that unless you at least acknowledge and say something about those good intentions…

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But does Cameron (say) believe in the things that Corbyn believes in? Clearly not. Beyond the fact that for neither of them their political horizons don't extend beyond capitalism and some kind of configuration in which the market and the state both play a role, they don't seem to have much in common, do they? 

FFS, what else do they need to have in common to be seen as the anti-socialists they both are?  They both believe that capitalism, suitably 'adjusted', can be made to work in the interests of us all.  At least with Cameron workers know, or should know, what they're going to get; with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir, which when eventually opened, turns out to be remarkably similar and as equally unpalatable as the snake oil in all the other bottles.

 You are missing the point, Dave.  I quite agree that Cameron and Corbyn  head up political parties that are essentially both capitalist and that capitalism administered by either of them is by its  very nature is or will be unpalatable.  I believe I have said more than once that Corbyn is inevitably going to disappoint his many enthusiastic  supporters because he is proposing to do what cannot be done – to try to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle.  That is, trying  to run capitalism in the interests of the majority. No one that I know of on this forum would dispute any of this.  But this is not relevant to what we are talking about.  Despite their commonalities in this fundamental sense there clearly  ARE differences between Corbyn and Cameron.  You surely  cannot seriously  be suggesting here that no such differences exist.  Read through that list of 24 things that Corbyn believes in and tell me how many of these things Cameron also believes in. I bet you cant. So thats the first point – that its silly to argue there are no differences when demonstrably there are.  People  will only look askance at you and regard you as slightly unhinged if you keep on insisting  there are no differences or point blank refuse even to acknowledge such differences.  It doesn't do the credibility of the socialist case much good by doing so.  It makes it seem disconnected from reality and dogmatic The second point  centres on your give-away comment that "with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir" (my bold).  EXACTLY!!  That is why you have to be doubly careful about how you go about criticising Corbyn .  Go in with all guns blazing and I guarantee you you will instantly alienate the people who support him.  They wont waste a nanosecond more on listening to you on why you think Corbyn is as bad as Cameron.  They will instantly draw up the drawbridge and all you will have done is to have created yet another embittered and sneering critic of the SPGB for life. So you have to be very careful and tactful about how you go about criticising Corbyn.  Note that I am very far from saying don't criticise him,  What people find attractive about Corbyn is, to a degree, what is attractive about the SPGB.  I think ALB is quite right that in a sense that Corbyn is talking the same kind of language as the SPGB – up to a  point.  That is to say, he is trying to attract supporters on grounds that are not completely removed from what the SPGB is saying  – or at any rate are noticeably closer than what Cameron is saying, for example.  I am referring here to the kind of values he appears to endorse.Going in with all guns blazing as far as Corbyn is concerned is a recipe for simply shooting yourself in the foot

[robbo203]

From the BBC Website… "24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=bbcnewsmagazine_news__&ns_linkname=na&ns_fee=0 Not socialism unfortunately – leastways not what we call socialism.  But does Cameron  (say)  believe in the things that Corbyn believes in? Clearly not.  Beyond the fact that for neither of them their political horizons don't extend beyond capitalism and some kind of configuration in which the market and the state both play a role, they don't seem to have much in common, do they?   It would be foolish therefore to regard them  as effectively identical Point is –  which viewpoint is more likely to evolve in a socialist direction or, to put it differently, which viewpoint is closer to a socialist viewpoint even if it is not itself a socialist viewpoint. I'm pretty sure most people here would know the answer to that even if some might not fully appreciate what that implies – that you have to adapt your tone and approach according to the individual or political party you are criticising

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 There has been economic upheaval around the globe since 2008. As usual it's our class that bears the brunt of the in built insanity of capitalism, with no end to austerity measures in sight. This should be a time when the SPGB/WSM makes its biggest gains, in terms of support/membership, as people frustrated with the status quo look for alternatives.There is plenty of evidence that alternatives are being sought after. The question should be, how does the SPGB/WSM tap into this pool of frustration.I've already said the "left" hold more in common with us lot, regarding progressive social ideas, than do the "right". Given that fact, does it make sense to attack the "left" with more venom than the "right"?I suggest the SPGB use intensive attacks on the current overtly pro-capitalist government in order that it might attract the attention of those who gravitate towards the "left", precisely because this UK government revolts them so much.

 Hear hear.! I fully endorse this – which doesnt mean refraining from criticising the Left. Its a question of tone and emphasis. It is also to be noted that the heyday of the SPGB was actually when the Attlee Labour government was in power.  Not that this should be interpreted as a suggestion that socialists should support Corbyn in the hope that this will swell the membership of the SPGB  Of course not. Corbyn is the leader of a capitalist political party that must be opposed. The real question is HOW do we oppose him.  What kind of approach do we use in opposing him.  It cannot be precisely the same way in which one might oppose say IDS or Cameron.  Surely no one can seriously believe that?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

"I believe in public ownership, but I have never favoured the remote nationalised model that prevailed in the post-war era. Like a majority of the population and a majority of even Tory voters, I want the railways back in public ownership. But public control should mean just that, not simply state control: so we should have passengers, rail workers and government too, co-operatively running the railways to ensure they are run in our interests and not for private profit."This has been used against my criticism of a return to old labour. Corbyn -they say – is not suggesting the same thing so we cannot use the same knee jerk response. We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid. There is also the fact that he wishes to put the Party's questions to the opposition not his own.  Never heard any labour politician say that

 To be fair though, Vin, Corbyn's "common ownership" is still an essentially statist construction except that its "not simply state control".  Its still nationalisation -state capitalism –  albeit with a particular Corbynite twist.  Socialists can reasonably attack this but at the same time acknowlege the particularities of what he is promoting. In general, though, I agree with your position.  Socialists  need to be very very careful  about the way in which they go about attacking Corbyn otherwise they could spoil things for themselves big time.  You cannot  be seen to  be lumping together Corbyn and, say, Cameron as if there was absolutely  no difference whatsoever between them.  Thats just stupid and it would certainly do the SPGB no favours going down this road.  It would just make the Party seem less credible. And it would close off completely any possibility of tapping into this surge of political consciousness and nudging it in a more positive and socialist direction Far better to acknowledge the differences and also to acknowlege the apparent intent behind the difference – so IDS for example would clearly be fully deserving of a more personalised attack (as some have argued here) rather than say Corbyn since the sentiments of the former are indeed loathsomely anti working class.  But you cannot say that of the latter.  He may be politically naive but his heart is in the right place at least. It would seem churlish – even foolish – to deny that. The point is that in the long run the needs of capital will prevail over the intentions of the politicians, however well intentioned, and this is what we should be focussing on and emphasising . Or, as Alan says, we should keep our eye on the ball and not the player –  except perhaps for the occasional obnoxious player like IDS who is not intent on playing ball but on viciously headbutting those unfortunates who stand in his way and apparently relishing it.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Oh,  just to stir it a bit 

Quote:

We will introduce a ‘friends of Left Unity’ category whereby those who have chosen not to remain members can continue to receive our newsletter and participate in joint discussion and common action on issues that unite us.

Would a SPGBer becoming a member of such a category disciplinary face charges?I'm sure on a personal level there are members who are friends with Left Unity members And is there any circumstance that we ourselves would create such a category…for instance, for those who do not cast off their religious convictions and supernatural beliefs.  

 Not a bad idea, Alan.  Although I would prefer the SPGB jettisoned completely this silly bar on religious socialists – it is totally superfluous and unnecessary given all the very strict criteria you have to fulfil to become , and continue to be, an SPGBer –  this idea of starting up something  equivalent to  a  ‘friends of Left Unity’ for the SPGB itself is certianly a step in the right direction.   It  would be a more inclusive and accommodating approach as well as being a welcome acknowledgement of the plain fact that socialism is not going to be brought about by a movement of committed atheists but will require the  involvement millions (billions) of others as well who understand and want socialism  (which, after all, is all that basically counts at the end of the day). However, all this is contingent upon a clear recognition that just because you are not currently a member of the SPGB this does not make you a "non socialist", still less an "anti-socialist". Which is why it is very important to get this message across  on these various threads to do with Corbyn, Lucas and the like.  We have got to adopt a more discriminating, nuanced, and what SP rightly calls "intelligent", approach to this whole matter.  Hardline and unremittingly uniform hostility to everything and everyone outside your own small circle is an approach that is destined to keep your circle small

[robbo203]

It seems that the members in question – those who maintained that the class struggle could not be waged independently of the SPGB – could be  considered guilty of a kind of idealist position on this matter.  Did they imagine that classes only materialised out of a worldview exclusively promulgated by the SPGB or, if not , if classes existed independently of the SPGB, that the relationship between these classes was not in fact in an underlying sense, intrinsically antagonistic i.e.. took the form of a "struggle" over such things as wages etc.  Their whole position seems absurd and utterly contrary to anything that could be called recognisably Marxian in its approach to society and history. All this, needless to say, has ramifications for what we are talking about on other threads such as the need for a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to what might be called "non socialists", based on the recognition that there are clearly degrees of socialist  understanding so the question of where to "place the bar" becomes critical.  Too low raises the prospect of being swamped by reformists and the like; too high on the other hand,  has crippling implications for the growth of the organisation and its future vitality. Given the gradual and seemingly remorseless decline in the membership of the SPGB since the War, I would suggest this is a matter that needs to be urgently addressed.  Mind you, personally, if I was in the SPGB in the 1920s I wouldn't have voted myself in favour of expulsion of the above members.  I think there must be room for differences of opinion within a revolutionary socialist organisation and I don't think the difference of opinion in this case was sufficiently significant to warrant expulsion.  Pragmatically, all that matters is Isaac Rab's core criteria of what constitutes a socialist; anything else is secondary and dispensable  

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?

 I endorse the drift of your whole argument, Alan. Yes of course there are socialists outside the SPGB and if there were not, I would say there would be little point in the SPGB carrying on – after 110 years and with a membership down to a few hundred. Socialists are the product of the interaction between material circumstances and socialist ideas and the notion that the SPGB alone is the sole fount of socialist wisdom is ludicrous and idealist. The SPGB for me, more than any other organisation, ticks most of the boxes of what, for me, should figure in a revolutionary socialist political organisation –  although as you know, and I wont go on about this here, I think some of its policies, notably the exclusion of religious minded socialists (in Isaac Rab's sense of the word , socialist), is utterly daft and another case of the SPGB shooting itself in the foot.  Hopefully one day in the not too distant future it will abandon these self imposed obstacles to its own growth… You mention the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist.  I think Caroline Lucas would be classified as the former rather than the latter. I interpret "anti-socialist"  to mean active opposition to the ideas and values of the socialist movement. I don't think she can be called that even if she does not have socialism as her chosen explicit political goal in mind.  It is silly to argue that there are no difference whatsoever between  individuals who fall under this heading , let alone those who are not in the SPGB.  i.e. 99.99% of the population.  I'm not in the SPGB .  Am I, then, a non socialist or even an anti socialist? I think socialist consciousness, or what you call a "socialistic" outlook, is a matter of degree.  It is a question of values amongst other things.  You could argue that much of what Lucas or indeed Corbyn are talking about is implicitly "socialistic". Yes of course it jars with the fact that they belong to organisations whose horizons do not extend beyonds the capitalist market economy and which are definitely non socialist if not actively anti-socialist. Nevertheless, people are complex and contradictory creatures,  We should cut them a bit of slack at times and encourage them to develop their ideas and resolve their inner contradictions at their own pace.  Attacking them personally as if the fact that they did not explicitly advocate socialism was some kind of moral defect, is frankly not conducive to them or indeed, more to the point, others who are their supporters coming to embrace socialism as a definitive political objective

[robbo203]

Here's something by him in the Gruaniad http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/peter-hitchens-tory-trotskyite-left-right I suppose its not inevitable that Trots will  morph into  crusty old right wing reactionaries in old age but there does seem to be a high probability of that happening.  I wonder why that is? There must be some kind of structural continuity in thinking that eases the switch in allegiance.  Perhaps Trotskyist vanguardism  is basically just the ideology of the managers – echoes of James Burnham's "managerial society" here –  and the gravitational pull of the Right on aging Trots is just a logical development of all this. After all, Trotsky himself headed up the militarisation of labour  programme in Russia in the early 1920s which crushed independent working class resistance to the newly emerging state capitalist regime.  Colonel Blimp would have heartily approved

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

That's the solution to Robbo's problem. Get people whose only difference with us is over religion to declare that they support our aims and values, pay £3 and get to vote to choose our election candidates ….

 Well not quite,  ALB – though the "problem" you refer to is not mine but the Party's to the extent that it seeks to handicap itself with unnecessarily restrictive membership criteria that inhibit it  own growth as in the case of its on religious beliefs.  Not even Marx would have upheld such an extreme  position as the rules of the First International would demonstrate. Nevertheless to take up your idea and run with it a little – if people were asked to declare that "they support our aims and values",  (barring the contested issue of religion) would this not amount to a kind of membership test?  If so, how would you justify limiting their involvement to the selection of election candidates alone?.  Is an intermediate or compromise solution possible? I am asking this in all seriousness. I  would be interested in exploring this idea further though I don't believe the suggestion of paying £3 for the privilege of choosing an SPGB election candidate in an open election is a desirable, or even practical, one but I assume you offered made this suggestion in jest – no?

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.

You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.

 Strictly speaking, this is not relevant since what I gather from what Jondwhite is saying is that participation of outsiders in the affairs of the SPGB  in open elections would be limited to the selection of it personnel, party officers  or parliamnetary candiates in these open elections. It wouldn't effect policy which would remain under the control of the membership, Personally, I cant see much point in the idea though it might in theory attract more interest – or at least curiosity – in the SPGB.  At a latter stage, if and when the SPGB were ever to become a  "mass party", this idea might become a lot more relevant.  But hopefully by then the Party would have long since dispensed of some of those more restrictive and redundant policies it has at prersent – like its silly idea of barring religious minded socialists – that have inhibited its progress thus far.

[robbo203]

Osborne is a complete and utter prat.It is comical how these politicians puff themselves up into pundits when they are more often than not just a bunch of bar room bullies and  buffoons  The whole situation in Syria is a bizarre contradiction into which the  western powers (and others) have sleepwalked.  The Assad regime, despicable though it is is, in practice, ISIS's most formidable foe.  I read somewhere that when Kobani was under siege it was the Syrian airforce that was inflicting by far the most  damage on ISIS, not the Americans or their allies. So here is the dilemma for the West – you can attack Assad but that will surely strengthen the hand of ISIS . Or you can attack ISIS but that will to the advantage of Assad.  Which is it to be?  Either way the result will be more death and destruction , more brutalization and dehumanisation,  and a rise in the outflow of refugees which some in Europe are complaining about while contributing to the very thing that is prompting Syrians in their hundreds of thousands to flee in terror and fear of their lives.  Shamefully, it has even been suggested by some that since many of these refugees end up a relatively "peaceful" neighbouring states like Lebanon where they don't face persecution they can no longer considered  "refugees" when they move on from there to Fortress Europe but rather "economic migrants" without any right to settle in Europe. Such is the duplicitous and warped logic of these disreputable politicians Of course there is another option which is not to engage militarily in the conflict at all and cut off arms as far as possible to all sides in the conflict – perhaps by means of arms blockade – in the hope that the intensity of the conflict will diminish as the supplies run out.  But thats not gonna happen either.  If there is a demand for weapons that wonderful, if not so,  "invisible" hand of the market is gonna meet it .  By hook or by crook but usually in the guise of the latter

[Author]

Posts