[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Actually I checked their Website against our declaration of principles, not related.  

 Its a matter of degree, Vin. For sure they don't have a carefully elaborated and worked out Declaration of Principles such as the SPGB and their position on  a lot of things has to be read between the lines.  The MFP is not organised to anything like the same extent  but there is definitely stuff amongst what they have written that echoes the SPGB outlook For example, check out this election leaflet of theirs: https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D941650279202346%26time%3D1431280880%26metadata&access_token=1307731132%3AAVLOBFZGxgsbJXPmPiv-GOcYaoBQgXbznghSaqzrr4jlAA&title=Our+access+to+goods+and+services+is+neither+based+on+superior+morality.docx Its Website defines its aims thusThe Money Free Party believes that to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity for all, we must all claim earth and its resources as the common heritage of all.Here the property relationship is acknowledged as being key and so, by implication., a class perspective One thing I would say is that its Website seems to be the more official or formal expression of what the MFP stands for – albeit thin on the ground – by comparison with the  Facebook page .  Being a member of  the FB group does not make you a member of the MFP.  Some people on the FB page are quite a long way off from holding a socialist  position and I 'm guessing are probably not members of the MFP anyway and in some cases don't even strictly want to see the elimination of money per se  rather its transformation into a more effective means of exchange as far as I can tell.  Others such as Nick himself however are not of that opinion and are in effect rather close to the SPGB outlook. I agree though that a more detailed "where we stand" type of statement is needed from the MFP before any kind of collaboration can be countenanced.  All I am saying is don't back away from something that could work out to be quite promising and mutually beneficial.  Give the thing time to develop…. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Just seen this from a past Minutes of Kent & Sussex Branch:

Quote:

iii) Money Free PartyA member had asked for clarification about this organisation and if there were any similarities between its aims and the party's. A brief discussion ensued in which it was explained that the party's position was based on class analysis and materialism and not on idealism. Money would only become redundant with the ending of exchange relationships once the minority ownership of the means of production had been converted into the common property of the whole of society.

They are a registered political party with the Electoral Commission.

 This explanation might possibly be quite misleading, in that case, because Ive definitely seen something on the MFP site which argues that what we really need to get rid of is private property which underlies the use of money. If so, this would call for a reassessment of what this organisation actually stands for and that it is much closer to the SPGB than might be imagined

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

As to the difference, one no doubt is the one Robbo raises (but he would, wouldn't he!), but the more important one is that he does what Vin says we should avoid (and which we do avoid) of painting a "money-free society" as a nice, ideal society that can be established without class struggle and revolution.

 Just by way of confirmation , here is Nick (Tapping's) response to a question I raised on their FB sitei definetly think there is loads of room for collaboration Robin.The difference really is small but subtle…. language being the best part of it, and religious and spiritual tolerance being another part.How does the SPGB feel about collaborating with an organisation that has essentially the same aim and is apparently critical of TZM for much  the same reason that the SPGB is?   And what form might this collaboration take which could turn out to be mutually beneficial? Perhaps that's something else this Special Conference could also address….

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 . Like TZM we have to transform them into proper political parties…ie as it says on D of P 

Quote:

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests

Perhaps we should lead by example 

 Whoa.  Hold yer horses here, Alan! What could you possibly mean by that ??? It would surely be up to them to doing any transforming themselves if they were not a "proper political party"and if they were,  how would the SPGB relate to them – as allies or opponents?  If the former, is it conceivable that some form of electoral pact or closer collaboration could be thrashed out and, if not , why not? The notion that there might be more than one poltical party expressing the class interest of workers might seem anathema but is entirely feasible.  For what its worth what is the position of the SPGB regarding  the Ashbourne Court/Socialist Studies group.  Im not overly fond of their rigid and doctrinaire posture on many things but I dont doubt that they are socialist and as such the expression of working class interests. Who knows? – one day the differences might be sunk and they might rejoin although admittedly it seems highly unlikely.  How many of them are left anyway – just out of curiosity?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What's his disagreement with us about that stopped him from becoming a member.How many are involved in the Moneyless Party…is it a one-man-band?

 The Money Free Party has 914 people on its FB page compared to 975 in the SPGB FB page as of today. Nick is indeed a prominent member but it is not a one man band; others are involved.  There are some on their site who advocated the reform of the money system but their arguments have been contested.  The point has also been made that it is not money that is the problem per se but the social relationships that necessitate its use – private property. So there does seem to be a considerable overlap between the MFP and the SPGB. I'm not 100%  sure what the differences are but I have a feeling that the question of the SPGB's blanket ban on religious belief is one of these as I recall reading some discussion on that a while agoWhy not join the  FB site and find out – like me?

[robbo203]

Slightly relevant to this are Marx's speculations on the future of Russia.   In 1877 he wrote a response to  N.K. Mikhailovsky, the leading theorist of Russian Populism, who had penned a critique of Das Kapital in which he had foisted on Marx a highly schematicised stagist view of history  which declared that Russia had to take precisely the same path trodden by Western Europe in the development of capitalism via a brutal process of "primitive accumulation" and land dispossession.  Marx argued that this is not what he was suggesting. It was theoretically possible for Russia to skip the stage of capitalist development by building on the traditional communal form of  the Russian village although this would necessitate  linking up with a "proletarian revolution in the West."   He cited the case of the plebeians of ancient Rome who were originally free peasants tilling their own land.   Their growing indebtedness and the  expropriation of their land by large landowners however did not result in the Roman proletariat being turned into wage workers , as happened in Western Europe, but rather into an "indolent mob, more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern lands of the United States; and by their side was unfolded not a capitalist but a slave mode of production".   Hence concluded Marx:strikingly analogical events, occurring, however, in different historical environments, led to entirely dissimilar results.By studying each of these evolutions separately, and then comparing them, one will easily find the key to these phenomena, but one will never succeed with the master-key of a historico-philosophical theory whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical.  (https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol01/no04/marx.htmSome Marxologists have argued that this demonstrates fairly conclusively that Marx did not subscribe to unilinear model of social evolution but a multilinear model in which historical contingencies played a large part 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Religion and membership has been raised on our discussion forum and i think Robbo will be interested in Paddy Shannon's replyhttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WSM_Forum/conversations/topics/52463;_ylc=X3oDMTM1YTI0Y2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MDYxMARncnBzcElkAzE3MDgzNjMwNzcEbXNnSWQDNTI0NzAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDMxMTY3MTA1BHRwY0lkAzUyNDYz

 Thanks Alan. I particularly like this part of Paddy's text: "More prosaically, we tend to think that people who are capable of believing in imaginary beings can’t be relied on to make solid and rational decisions but I think this is an atheist bias and our weakest argument. Some scientists, doctors and engineers are religious but we don’t normally question their ability to think rationally. Humans are exceptionally good at compartmentalising. Conversely, nobody has ever suggested that atheism is a gold standard of sanity.  –          You can see from this that WSM members don’t all think alike on this subject. As it happens, I agree with your arguments more than Julian’s. Extremists should not be allowed to join for very good and obvious reasons, but otherwise, let in all the Quakers, Pagans, Buddhists and Druids that want to join, as far as I’m concerned, although I doubt there would be many. If they’ve got more motivation than us atheists, so much the better. Speaking personally, if I had to choose between a socialist world with religious people in it and a capitalist world full of atheists, I wouldn’t hesitate. Provided they didn’t turn up on my doorstep with a Bible and a pious lecture at the ready."   This is something I've been banging on about for ages. It really does not matter that people hold religious views provided we can be sure that their particular brand of religion does not interfere with them being socialists.  As I understand it Marx in helping to  up the rules of The International Workingmens Association (the First International) cautioned against inserting a rule disallowing religious believers into the Association.  The  SPGB should take a leaf out of Marx's book.   A blanket ban on religious belief is pointless, does not achieve anything more than what the other very tight membership requirements achieve and creates yet another ridiculous obstacle in the way of the growth of the Party. The point of the SPGB is to help bring about a socialist world not to rid the world of religious belief (there are plenty of atheists who are virulently anti socialist so would the Party ban atheists?) and it is sad that the largest body of organised socialists in the world – albeit pathetically small – should handicap themselves in this way.  As I have always argued, a softened stance on religion by way of a compromise which at least allows in some religious believers but excludes what Paddy calls religious "extremists" or certain organised religions, would be a huge step forward and I would seriously hope that this is something that this Special conference would consider…..

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 I am talking about the starting point of our propaganda. I am not saying we should not attempt to visualise the future but nothing will be achieved unless workers decide they have had enough of capitalism first.  

 Another  example of what I am talking about.  You cannot really separate "having enough of capitalism" from the more positive notion of visualising an alternative to capitalism. The two things go together – ALWAYS!  If you don't have an alternative in mind to put in the place of capitalism then you cannot really be said to have have "had enough of capitalism".  All you have had "enough off" is some or all of the symptoms of capitalism without necessarily understanding how these connect with the capitalist basis of modern society…

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Problem is, Vin, socialists are in the business of communicating ideas and to communicate effectively you have to start from where people are.  You have to, in a way , put yourself in their shoes, and try to help them to come to a socialist understanding through dialogue – through what was originally called "dialectics" in the Socratic sense.

 I must respectfully disagree with that. It sounds patronising and a little like the parties of the left. We need to be open and honest and hide nothing.Brand is a good example, he was not afraid to use the term 'revolution'. He got 10 million twitter followers. Why should we be afraid of the term. perhaps people are pissed off with politics because of all the  'dressing up'. perhaps people want a party to get to the point: exploitation, Parasites etcWhen our speakers are asked 'What do you stand for?'We tend to say 'we want a nice society without war, classes, money etc. With all the horrors going on around us it makes us sound like christianity. People rightly don't listen any further. After all it sounds nuts. The starting point of our propaganda should be that there is a parisitic class leeching from the rest. We have to deal with this reality through revolution. They own the earth and intend to take it from them. 

 Its not "patronising", Vin, to start from a position of where people are at the moment and to tailor the message  to that; its just commonsense.  Thats what I liked about some of the responses from the SPGB candidates to enquirers.  They broke with the kind of formulaic approach one sometimes encounters and came across as more personable, more engaged with what the enquirer was actually asking… I don't disagree with your suggestion about using  the term "revolution" although I generally tend to qualify it by talking of a "peaceful democratic  social revolution".  Words are important but words can mislead if they are not qualified by other words.  Utter the the word "revolution" in a free standing sense and most people are liable to think you are referring to something like the Bolshevik Revolution and get turned off.  Who would seriously want the sort of Stalinist tyranny that was born out of that?I think you are being too black-or-white in your rejection of the seemingly "utopian" exercise of putting flesh on the bones of the socialist goal.  I think it is important to state openly that socialism will indeed mean a classless wageless moneyless commonwealth.  Otherwise, you will come across as just another Leftist  spouting "socialism" and "revolution". Actually , if anything, as an opening gambit , talking of socialism as a moneyless free access society is more likely to make people sit up and take notice if nothing else because it is so different. If nothing else that gives you the opportunity to qualify what you mean such as that it is not money per se that we seek to abolish but rather the social relationships that necessitate its use.  Play up to the initial scepticism as a way of disarming it by saying something like  "Yes it sounds utopian but the more you think about the more sense it makes.,.." Talking of which I have, as it happens, just  been reading through the SPGB's pamphlet "Marxism revisited" and came across this passage from a talk by SC (who I presume is Steve Coleman)So I am going to deal briefly with the utopian strand, the radical democratic strand, and the early socialist movement. First of all, Utopia. Utopia has a very bad name, not least of all because Marx and Engels in asserting the clear scientificity of their position made a point of emphasising and dismissing and, frankly, sneering at the significance of utopian vision, the mere utopian thinkers who had fanciful thoughts about the future. Having said that, Marx and Engels, in Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, gave the respect that was right to those utopian socialists who had influenced them I  agree.  We shouldn't be sneering at utopian depictions of a socialist future.  They are a source of inspiration, a stimulus to thinking more deeply about the kind of world we live in and a means of sharply differentiating the true revolutionaries from the left wing conservatives who cling to the realism of wanting to reform capitalism while gutting the term "revolution" of any credible meaning 

[robbo203]

Richard wrote:

Dear Comrades,I admit my guilt before the Party. I admit that I have waged a struggle against the Party, against Socialism and against the proletariat.  I have used every weapon known to me: open discussion, free thought, the introduction of new ideas and many other reprehensible activities.I admit that I am guilty of sins against the Party, of being an organizer of anti-Party thought and of being a traitor to the Proletariat. My political outlook was tainted by bourgeois ideology and I have failed the Party in every way imaginable.The Party's generosity is not unlimited. There are no arguments which I can use in my defence. I cannot atone for my monstrous crimes, for my failure in my struggle to obey Party doctrine.Sincerely,Comrade Richard

 LOL Richard.  Which reminds me also that apart from other ways of putting across the message , humour is pretty effective…. On the question of terminology I have sympathy with both sides of this "debate". I think the answer is to tailor the use of terminology to suit the occasion.  On some occasions, that might mean not using the term socialism at all.  However on a more general point I think it is fair to say that people who react positively to the word "socialism"  are likely to be the ones who are probably more receptive to what socialists are saying anyway and that consequently there is a case for using targeted propaganda that makes use of terms such as  "socialism"

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Our message is pathetic. Class struggle and revolution cannot be dressed up. Don't patronise workers, we know what needs to be done. A rose by any other name. Fuck bourgeois terminology. Revolution through class struggle is what we are about. If they don't like it they can fuck off.

 Problem is, Vin, socialists are in the business of communicating ideas and to communicate effectively you have to start from where people are.  You have to, in a way , put yourself in their shoes, and try to help them to come to a socialist understanding through dialogue – through what was originally called "dialectics" in the Socratic sense.  Though I understand your frustration which is very evident in your tone – I feel it too! – I think socialists have to resist the temptation to come across as just trying to ram the message down peoples' throats. It wont work and is self defeating I have to say I was very impressed with many of the response of the SPGB candidates to enquirers in this election – particularly Howard Pilotts.  It was very effective indeed in my opinion  –  this kind of personalised approach  to delivery of the socialist message and breaks with a more formulaic type of response. That is something that perhaps this Special Conference ought to consider as well as other things such as how to make it easier for people to join the SPGB. I know I go on about it but I still think you have to look again at the requirements for membership and eliminate anything that is superfluous and only presents a further unnecessary  obstacle to joining – like the very strict ruling on religious beliefs. Totally unnecessary in my view. Apart from that I think Alan has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of things to consider which could be built upon.

[robbo203]

Brand seems blissfully unaware of the harsh truth that a policy of "lesser evilism" naturally paves the way for an outcome of "greater evilism".  My only regret that the capitalist "Labour" Party didn't get in is that we now have to endure the same old tired special pleading  next time round – "vote Labour without illusions".  Couldn't exactly do that with much conviction if you have just had a taste of what a Labour Party in power meant in practice. Like I said earlier the see saw nature of capitalist politics will almost certainly guarantee the return of a Tory government – the presumed "greater evil" in this case – later  on had it failed to become the government this time round .  People like Brand only serve to help perpetuate this treadmill of illusions by issuing advice that  we should "vote Labour". After some promising noises initially, he has proven to be a rather big disappointment,sadly

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.

 Hi Stuart, Your comments above are also revealing for what they say about you! Do I take it then that you regard the case for socialism is purely a matter of economic interests – pragmatism – as opposed to morality? I have always taken the postition that it is necessarily both these things and was somewhat dismayed when the SPGB elected a few years back to effectively fall in line with Kautsky's observation – namely  that "it was the materialist interpretation of history which first completely deposed the moral ideal as the directing factor of social revolution”  and that this theory has ‘taught us to deduce our social aims solely from the knowledge of the material foundations’  (Karl Kautsky Ethics and the Materialist Conception Of History,1906, Chapter V . "The Ethics of Marxism").  I dont think you can entirely deduce your aims from a "knowledge of the material foundations of  society" – your aims  are also a question of values which moreover fundamentally influence how you interpet the world – your knowledge Your supposed pragmatism in choosing to vote for a through and through  capitalist political party you attempt to justify on grounds that supposedly separate you from those who  express a view point that is angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising .  And yet there  you are talking about all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government.  A slightly less evil government?  Can you not see the fundamental contradiction in your whole posture? And if you going to be "pragmatic" about it consider the point that I made earlier.  If you are recommending people to vote Labour, you doing so in the certain knowlege that a Labour government is going to disappoint and that as result of that disappointment workers in the long run are almost certainly going to switch their allegiance back to the Tories.  Given the see saw nature of capitalist politics this is what invariably happens, does it not? Why not then just short circuit the whole lengthy expostion and simply say "VOTE TORY!!   Because, lets face it, that is the long term consequence of voting Labour.  You are simply preparing the ground for the return of a  future Tory government in the wake of Labour's (inevitable) failure….

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Hi Alan,Brand changed his mind, something he has not been shy about doing in his public self-development and education. And as he said in his Trews show, he's well aware, and could go on for perhaps as long as you, about Labour's past and probable future failings. But the question on the table is not about Labour's failings. It's about whether we would prefer a Labour(-led) government to a Tory(-led) one. Brand says yes, and I agree with him. It's a reasonable thing to believe (a majority in the Labour movement do, don't they?), even if you're not a dupe of the system, a fool, a knave, a charlatan, have been bought off by the lizards, a careerist only out for yourself, etc, etc. 

 Well I don't agree Stuart.  Even if, for the sake of argument, a Labour government was marginally less harsh in its anti-working class policies, a vote for Labour in the short term is in effect a vote for the Tories in the long term (and vice versa I might add),  given the see-saw nature of capitalist politics. Invariably the election of one capitalist party to power leads to disenchantment and the subsequent diversion of political support to some political  rival, only for the whole process to repeat itself again and again.  The political rival gets into power and disappoints its followers who then switch their allegiance back to other one. Its a bleedin' treadmill we are talking about here and the only way to deal with a treadmill is to get the hell off it – something that I fondly imagined Brand had originally done  but sadly proved not to be the case. Honestly – at some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough". Otherwise you are liable to find yourself sucked into a quagmire with no way out.  and no end in sight.

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Well it was dismissed as anti socialist claptrap on here but Harold walsby made this point way back in 1949

Problem is, though, that while Walsby's rather contrived and rigid  functionalist hierarchy (or pyramid) or ideological types may well be a load of codswallop (and in my opinion, it is) this does not in any way invalidate the more general point  being made here – that we are all subject to irrational influences and that a political style  that basis itself on a purely rational approach is in a sense foredoomed to make little progress unless, as it were, it  takes on or addresses those influences on their own terms.  That is to say, unless it incorporates an element of "irrationalism" itself  and thereby becomes  more effectively able to appeal  to workers on a more rounded basis and not simply regard them as mere self-interested calculating machines (which is  actually what lies behind this "rationalist" paradigm). How often has one come across  the reason offered as why an individual decided to join the Socialist Party: "I came across a copy of the Socialist Standard.  I couldn't argue against what it was saying.  It made a lot of sense to me.  So I was persuaded  and subsequently joined the Socialist Party…" Its a caricature, I know, but what this hypothetical example does point to and highlight is the crucial importance attached to rationality in the role of the Party in propagating socialist ideas.  That in turn links  up with other basic motifs commonly found in the literature  – such as that socialism is a question of our economic class interests rather than a question of , say, moral indignation or that the approach of socialists to society is a "scientific" one that is value free and objective (I know I know I'm beginning to sound like LBird , god help me) or  (my particular bugbear with the Party) that you can't possibly entertain the idea of admitting into Party, a socialist who holds some vague religious ideas but in all other respects is clearly socialist, because he or she is irredeemably tainted with sin of embracing irrationalism….etc etc This way of thinking goes all the way back to people like Rudolf Hilferding, who wrote  in the preface to his work Finanzkapital  (1910):The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice is free from judgments of value. It is therefore false to conceive, as is widely done, intra et extra muros, that Marxism and socialism are as such identical. For logically, regarded as a scientific system and apart from its historical effect, Marxism is only a theory of the laws of movement of society formulated in general terms by the Marxian conception of history; the Marxian economics applying in particular to the period of commodity-producing society It makes what we are arguing for sound like something that  will be introduced by a bunch of white coated scientists… Don't get me wrong .  I'm not saying saying socialists should repudiate rationality in favour of irrationality or that we should reject the notion that socialism is in our class interests in favour of the notion that it is a moral imperative.  What I am saying is that we should incorporate both sides of this equation into our propaganda and practice What that might mean in practical terms I am not quite sure which is why I started this thread – to initiate some discussion on it.  The point is though that if individuals are significantly affected by irrational factors – and the link I gave at the outset strongly suggests this is the case – then how do we adapt our strategy to take this into account? We cant just ignore this.  If the case is so overwhelmingly strong and logical (and I believe it is) why are more workers not joining the socialist movement?  Its not just because they haven't heard of us . Thats a feeble excuse.  The vast majority who have heard of us still don't join.  Why?  Walsby came up with a reason but I think his basic argument was crap – an unconvincing  and speculative schema based on a functionalist sociology. Incidentally the title of this thread  I took from the pamphlet written by Maurice Brinton in 1970 .  See here https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm.  I'm not quite sure whether I go along with what he is saying but he does make some interesting points

[Author]

Posts