Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

editor said:
Why so few? You would have thought that after all those years you would have managed a slightly bigger figure. Why do you think so few people are interested?
So you count yourself as a member of the working class, yes?

Seeing as you're already telling people here who is and who isn't a member of the working class, could you post up your definition, so I can see where I fit in, please?

Ta.
Click to expand...

IMO why the SPGB have not attracted more members after 106 years is down to a variety of factors. The main ones being very few know of us, or are unaware of a viable alternative, disinterested in political solutions with all party politics being painted with the same brush, ignorance on the workings of the political and profit system, and just plain apathy.

I may be wrong but I think it would be a safe bet that you are a member of the working class. If I'm wrong just answer no to the following question: Do you work for a salary/wage or are dependent on benefits in order to live? If you were a capitalist the question(s) would be: Do you obtain your income from shareholdings or ownership in a business? Do you employ workers? Can you live of your income without working?

And bye the bye I have never told any body on this thread who is or is not a worker. exitentialist provided a self description by stating, "if I were a working class person", s/he said it not me. But I would also place a bet s/his answer to the description of working class would like yours be a yes.

Finally, what are going to do with the wannabee Julie Birchall. She's at it again.
 
Global_Stoner said:
Much smaller gap between rich and poor, one takes care of its citizens better then the other. Thus one flavor of capitalism can be worse then another.
Click to expand...

Less disparity on income or even more welfare don't make a bit of difference. I'm not that familiar with the Swedish model for administering capitalism, but if I was I'm sure I would find poverty, alienation, inequality, waste of resources and human potential, ghettos, discrimination, rampant consumerism, etc, etc. In fact much the same, but perhaps a different format to the US.
 
You have no idea? Yet you claim that there are no substantive differences between any and all forms of capitalism. You know very well exactly how you have to answer the question to remain consistent, but you also know how daft that answer will make you look. I think you don't actually have that much faith in your claim or the analysis that rests upon it.

If it makes it any easier, you can substitute US style capitalism or any other form of capitalism for Scandinavian model capitalism.
 
butchersapron said:
You have no idea? Yet you claim that there are no substantive differences between any and all forms of capitalism. You know very well exactly how you have to answer the question to remain consistent, but you also know how daft that answer will make you look. I think you don't actually have that much faith in your claim or the analysis that rests upon it.

If it makes it any easier, you can substitute US style capitalism or any other form of capitalism for Scandinavian model capitalism.
Click to expand...


I think it depends on what you mean by "substantive". There are of course variants of capitalism which by definition differ from each other in various ways - particularly in regard to the architecture of adminsitration and the form of class monopoly of the means of production. However, all variants of capitalism exhibit certain common or core features which enable us to identify any one of them as a form of capitalism. e.g. generalised commodity production, wage labour , profits etc

Presumably, this is what is meant by "substantive"
 
JimN said:
So far the criticisms of the SPGB on this thread seem to amount to:

The party doesn't have enough members. We only listen to the case put forward by an organisation of X membership.

They don't seek to lead the working class. Evidently not seeking to lead people is vanguardism.

They work to publicise ideas about a new society based on common ownership, production for use, democracy, freedom and peace. A classless society without the state, profit, money, nations or war. Evidently this is seen as elitist.

They don't seek to be elected in order to take office and administer the capitalist system that creates untold misery in the world. Other parties who seek to perpetuate the capitalist system, but have won a few crumbs of compensation for workers blighted by this very system are seen as champions of the working class.
Click to expand...
Actually, nobody was criticising the SPGB until your mate turned up and started telling us all how we must be thinking, how much better than anything we could vote for the SPGB was, and making grandiose claims that he's backing frantically away from while you appear to have been appointed Comrade i/c Smoke, Blowing Of, duties.

Don't try and paint this as the plucky SPGB fighting against the hooligan anti-socialist forces of reactionaryism and capitalist totalitarianism, this is just a few people who have quite independently identified your dude's outpourings as the vacuous bollocks they so clearly are, and called him on it. To which his response appears to have been to call in the cavalry (tip: arriving on donkeys doesn't cut it, coolwise), and flounce around the place insisting that anyone who disagrees with him is "moronic".

As comedy, it's got a lot going for it.

As any kind of serious debate, it sucks toasters through a drinking straw.
 
Gravediggers said:
Does the size of the membership really matter in contrast to the quality of the message?

"One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may be foolish, but hardly mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad, and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and peace upon the earth? You and I who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question." William Morris
Click to expand...
So, actually, only very, very few, then?

:D
 
robbo203 said:
I think it depends on what you mean by "substantive". There are of course variants of capitalism which by definition differ from each other in various ways - particularly in regard to the architecture of adminsitration and the form of class monopoly of the means of production. However, all variants of capitalism exhibit certain common or core features which enable us to identify any one of them as a form of capitalism. e.g. generalised commodity production, wage labour , profits etc

Presumably, this is what is meant by "substantive"
Click to expand...

So capitalism is capitalism. That's what my question was predicated on.But if there are substantive differences in the forms capitalism takes (political freedoms, ability to organise unions parties and associations,access to communication, education etc) that effect how the working class exists and how it may pursue its interests then this position that they're all the same really either falls apart or leaves the holder looking like a nutjob.
 
butchersapron said:
You have no idea? Yet you claim that there are no substantive differences between any and all forms of capitalism. You know very well exactly how you have to answer the question to remain consistent, but you also know how daft that answer will make you look. I think you don't actually have that much faith in your claim or the analysis that rests upon it.

If it makes it any easier, you can substitute US style capitalism or any other form of capitalism for Scandinavian model capitalism.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. The reply was in reference to the level of income and the provision of welfare and all I did was indicate that these factors alone fail to provide an insight into the problems of capitalism. The problems I provided are universal to capitalism, and I did say the format could be different in the US. My apologies I've just realised, I should have said in the original sentnce, "the particular format of the problems could be different in the US."

The Scandinavian model of capitalism may well be different, and even if its a more palatable form of capitalism there are insurmountable difficulties in transferring that particular model to the industrial nations due to the inherent competition of the profit system.
 
Gravediggers said:
And bye the bye I have never told any body on this thread who is or is not a worker. exitentialist provided a self description by stating, "if I were a working class person", s/he said it not me. But I would also place a bet s/his answer to the description of working class would like yours be a yes.
Click to expand...
How telling.

Your assumption that I would self-identify as "working class" is, I am afraid, totally incorrect. I find this craven clinging to obsolete distinctions of class futile and meaningless, and don't identify with any class group...though I'm well aware of where I tend to get classified by others.

And your absolutist position - again - as to the statement I made regarding not being working class betrays all the prejudices one could ever wish to encounter...and you set yourself - and your organisation - up as "teachers"? Don't make me fucking laugh :D.
 
Gravediggers said:
Less disparity on income or even more welfare don't make a bit of difference. I'm not that familiar with the Swedish model for administering capitalism, but if I was I'm sure I would find poverty, alienation, inequality, waste of resources and human potential, ghettos, discrimination, rampant consumerism, etc, etc. In fact much the same, but perhaps a different format to the US.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the SPGB model of socialism, where you would find 327 members writing pamphlets and administering various oral and written exams to each other to ensure the continued purity of their socialist ideals.

Personally, I am finding the "rampant consumerism" more attractive than tests to make sure everyone's on-message with the dialectic, and running pamphlets that no-one will ever read off on the Roneo. Maybe I'm just weird like that...
 
existentialist said:
Actually, nobody was criticising the SPGB until your mate turned up and started telling us all how we must be thinking, how much better than anything we could vote for the SPGB was, and making grandiose claims that he's backing frantically away from while you appear to have been appointed Comrade i/c Smoke, Blowing Of, duties.

Don't try and paint this as the plucky SPGB fighting against the hooligan anti-socialist forces of reactionaryism and capitalist totalitarianism, this is just a few people who have quite independently identified your dude's outpourings as the vacuous bollocks they so clearly are, and called him on it. To which his response appears to have been to call in the cavalry (tip: arriving on donkeys doesn't cut it, coolwise), and flounce around the place insisting that anyone who disagrees with him is "moronic".

As comedy, it's got a lot going for it.

As any kind of serious debate, it sucks toasters through a drinking straw.
Click to expand...

Me calling on support put a stop to you enjoying the bun fight did it? Under the circumstances what else would you expect when over two days I've been bombarded with over 100 postings. Happily not all of them have been moronic or dismissive as yours.
 
Gravediggers said:
Happily not all of them have been moronic or dismissive as yours.
Click to expand...

Subtext: "Some of them have agreed with my superior view"

If you are think 100 posts attacking you are a problem - I'd advice you to stay well away from the real class struggle (speaking as a bona fide and cad carrying prole)
 
existentialist said:
How telling.

Your assumption that I would self-identify as "working class" is, I am afraid, totally incorrect. I find this craven clinging to obsolete distinctions of class futile and meaningless, and don't identify with any class group...though I'm well aware of where I tend to get classified by others.

And your absolutist position - again - as to the statement I made regarding not being working class betrays all the prejudices one could ever wish to encounter...and you set yourself - and your organisation - up as "teachers"? Don't make me fucking laugh :D.
Click to expand...

You may not self-identify yourself as a member of the working class, but tough shit you are in it whether you like it or not. Have a nice day although the fear of being involved in the class struggle sends shivers up you spine it is impossible to copt out of. No intention of signing on Jobseekers I suppose? If you don't you can count yourself lucky.
 
butchersapron said:
So capitalism is capitalism. That's what my question was predicated on.But if there are substantive differences in the forms capitalism takes (political freedoms, ability to organise unions parties and associations,access to communication, education etc) that effect how the working class exists and how it may pursue its interests then this position that they're all the same really either falls apart or leaves the holder looking like a nutjob.
Click to expand...


I dont get what you are trying to say here. Capitalism is capitalism, yes, but there are different forms or variants of capitalism as I explained. Recognising this does not mean we can no longer say that they are all the same in the sense of being forms of capitalism i.e. they all have something in common. Dogs are all the same in being dogs and this is what differentiates them from, say, cats but this does not mean we cannot distinguish between a Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier.

I think this is the point that is being conveyed - capitalism of necessity is the same everywhere in its fundamentals, its core features. However, the form in which capitalism manifests is historically contingent differing from one place to another and from one period to another
 
dennisr said:
Subtext: "Some of them have agreed with my superior view"

If you are think 100 posts attacking you are a problem - I'd advice you to stay well away from the real class struggle (speaking as a bona fide and cad carrying prole)
Click to expand...

So I take it you go on one man demonstrations or man picket lines on your own? Are you what is called an autonomous individual? Come off it no man is an island.
 
existentialist said:
As opposed to the SPGB model of socialism, where you would find 327 members writing pamphlets and administering various oral and written exams to each other to ensure the continued purity of their socialist ideals.

Personally, I am finding the "rampant consumerism" more attractive than tests to make sure everyone's on-message with the dialectic, and running pamphlets that no-one will ever read off on the Roneo. Maybe I'm just weird like that...
Click to expand...

Actually I don't find you weird just stereotypical consumerists whose worldy outlook is determined by how much interest is being paid to the credit card company. Make sure you keep up with payments or those nasty capitalists will take away your credit rating. And then it will be oh fuck my balloon has burst.
 
existentialist said:
How telling.

Your assumption that I would self-identify as "working class" is, I am afraid, totally incorrect. I find this craven clinging to obsolete distinctions of class futile and meaningless, and don't identify with any class group...though I'm well aware of where I tend to get classified by others.

And your absolutist position - again - as to the statement I made regarding not being working class betrays all the prejudices one could ever wish to encounter...and you set yourself - and your organisation - up as "teachers"? Don't make me fucking laugh :D.
Click to expand...



How do you define class? Correct me if I am wrong but the SPGB, (since some folk here are intent upon taking a pot shot at it:rolleyes:), defines class in the traditional marxian sense of one's "relationship to the means of production". If you own sufficient capital upon which to live without having to sell your labour power to an employer you are a capitalist. If not, you are a worker. That makes the huge majority of the population, working class.

Is this schema "obsolete"? Hardly. It is factually correct. What one might plausibly argue is that is doesnt really do full justice to the nuances and complxities of social reality. That would be a fair point to make but then as with any model, it is necessarily a simplification of reality

There are of course other definitions of working class and I suspect you subscribe to a sociological definition based on composite criteria such as occupation (usually blue collar), income, education and even accent. Its not that this defintion is "wrong" and the SPGB's definition is right (or vice versa). They just have a different rationale or purpose.

By the SPGB's definition, you are almost certainly a member of the working class unless youve got an impressive portfolio of investments you are not letting on about. If you are a worker in these terms, this is not something you can just opt out of. It has to do with your economic circumstances which cannot just be wished away.

By the more usual sociological defintion it is far more likely that might not be working class in terms of holding down a blue collar job. You might well flit from one kind of job to another, making it difficult to pin what class you belong to by this criterion. Perhaps thats what you mean when you say I find this craven clinging to obsolete distinctions of class futile and meaningless but this does not apply to the Marxian definition of class in the way that you suppose
 
Gravediggers said:
No. If there is any difference you have noticed please post.
Click to expand...

The experience of many Swedes and Americans in terms of their health, life expectancy, levels of education, interactions with the criminal justice system, might point to their being some very real lived differences between these societies. That your out dated broad brush approach is not concerned with those diferences (indeed in unable to get to grips with those differences other than to dismiss them), may go some way to explain the SPGB's 327 members and it's enduring political invisibility.

Louis MacNeice
 
robbo203 said:
I dont get what you are trying to say here. Capitalism is capitalism, yes, but there are different forms or variants of capitalism as I explained. Recognising this does not mean we can no longer say that they are all the same in the sense of being forms of capitalism i.e. they all have something in common. Dogs are all the same in being dogs and this is what differentiates them from, say, cats but this does not mean we cannot distinguish between a Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier.

I think this is the point that is being conveyed - capitalism of necessity is the same everywhere in its fundamentals, its core features. However, the form in which capitalism manifests is historically contingent differing from one place to another and from one period to another
Click to expand...

I think I might take a different approach if I was trying to protect myself from a Great Dane as opposed to a Yorkshire Terrier. And before you point out that the SPGB is not in the business of protecting the working class from capitalism, I know; but I thought if I talked about eliminating dogs, posters would think me a little cruel.

Louis MacNeicde
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
P
Three injured in school stabbing in Wales (24/4/24)
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
GarveyLives
G
Bingoman
Is the Princess of Wales dead yet?
Replies
20
Views
623
moochedit
moochedit
editor
Petition: End "Prince of Wales" title out of respect for Wales
Replies
2
Views
478
spellbinder
S
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
393
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom