George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[Gravediggers]

No, I'd say they are on the left wing of political ideologies. Surely you are not suggesting that all political ideologies are capitalist.

Yes of course there are tories to the left of the party. There are new labourites to the left of their party. Both are right-wing parties, though.

I'd say a lot of left wing people wouldn't agree with capitalism (in the sense of rich people being able to live off their capital without working) at all. You think they are all deceitful liars that are manipulative and condescending, too?

Of course I'm not suggesting, "that all political ideologies are capitalist." What I am suggesting is that the left by definition accept capitalist ideology - they are the left wing of capitalism are they not? - and therefore have to work within the capitalist mindset of profit comes first human needs a poor second.

With all capitalist political parties containing a left and right, irrespective of whether or not that particular party is considered to be on the left or right (or even centerist?) of the political spectrum this makes political identification, over a particular time and period, difficult and extremely confusing to say the least.

You have just made my point, ta. Even if the rich ruling class were forced, or even voluntary went to work (which some in fact do), their capital I presume would remain intact? This being the case it strongly suggests "a lot of left wing people" are indeed deceitful liars, manipulative and condescending. Because such rhetoric leaves capitalism plainly intact.

Hmm just had a thought. What about those capitalists who are infirm, elderly or mentally and physically disabled and plainly not fit for any kind of work, except of course to inspect their bank balance. Would they be allowed to nominate a member of the working class to do their work for them?

But of course this happens already don't it?

What a funny world we live in.

 

[ddraig]

see our Ron has come out for Plaid

 

[whichfinder]

And this bit about redefining left wing as 'the left wing of capitalism' seems a bit suspicious/culty to me. Why is it the left wing of capitalism?

Because it is constantly seeking to adapt or ameliorate an existing model rather than working to replace it with an entirely different one.

 

[Gravediggers]

Because, I imagine, it makes it even easier to define oneself as "lefter than left". Presumably on the same basis that American porn stars end up with unfeasible chests: if more is good, then even more must be better.

Although you are in denial about you class identity you are spot on in regards to the political competition amongst the left. Lol on your porno analogy though for its weird sense of humour. I look forward to the next demo by the left to see if they have picked up on your suggestion to become 'The Spectable of the spectable'.

 

[two sheds]

Of course I'm not suggesting, "that all political ideologies are capitalist." What I am suggesting is that the left by definition accept capitalist ideology - they are the left wing of capitalism are they not? - and therefore have to work within the capitalist mindset of profit comes first human needs a poor second.

why are they the 'left wing of capitalism'? When you ask someone their politics if they want to say they're left wing they don't say 'i'm on the left wing of capitalism'. That just sounds like a mantra that you keep repeating because you want it to be true. What in the word 'left' by definition accepts capitalist ideology?

With all capitalist political parties containing a left and right, irrespective of whether or not that particular party is considered to be on the left or right (or even centerist?) of the political spectrum this makes political identification, over a particular time and period, difficult and extremely confusing to say the least.

ok now you're talking about party politics. None of the parties we have are 'left wing' by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, if you're defining the left as members of a capitalist political party then of course left wingers are going to be capitalists, because you've just defined them as such. That doesn't make it true.

You have just made my point, ta. Even if the rich ruling class were forced, or even voluntary went to work (which some in fact do), their capital I presume would remain intact? This being the case it strongly suggests "a lot of left wing people" are indeed deceitful liars, manipulative and condescending. Because such rhetoric leaves capitalism plainly intact.

Well that's because you're presuming it. My clause "in the sense of rich people being able to live off their capital without working" could quite easily have been followed by "because the state has taken all their money off them".

So, interesting - just because of the way that some random hippy on the internet phrases something you again leap to your conclusion that left wing people are deceitful liars, and manipulative and condescending. I find your rhetoric somewhat deceitful, and a bit manipulative and condescending tbh.

Very clever, but

Hmm just had a thought. What about those capitalists who are infirm, elderly or mentally and physically disabled and plainly not fit for any kind of work, except of course to inspect their bank balance. Would they be allowed to nominate a member of the working class to do their work for them?

But of course this happens already don't it?

What a funny world we live in.

there i agree with you, 'tis a funny world. So how do you take the money off the capitalists, though, yes including the infirm, elderly or mentally and physically disabled ones?

 

[Gravediggers]

why are they the 'left wing of capitalism'? When you ask someone their politics if they want to say they're left wing they don't say 'i'm on the left wing of capitalism'. That just sounds like a mantra that you keep repeating because you want it to be true. What in the word 'left' by definition accepts capitalist ideology?

ok now you're talking about party politics. None of the parties we have are 'left wing' by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, if you're defining the left as members of a capitalist political party then of course left wingers are going to be capitalists, because you've just defined them as such. That doesn't make it true.

Well that's because you're presuming it. My clause "in the sense of rich people being able to live off their capital without working" could quite easily have been followed by "because the state has taken all their money off them".

So, interesting - just because of the way that some random hippy on the internet phrases something you again leap to your conclusion that left wing people are deceitful liars, and manipulative and condescending. I find your rhetoric somewhat deceitful, and a bit manipulative and condescending tbh.

there i agree with you, 'tis a funny world. So how do you take the money off the capitalists, though, yes including the infirm, elderly or mentally and physically disabled ones?

OK we agree to differ on the definitive description of the 'left' in capitalism.


It is pointless taking the money off the capitalist whilst their capital remains intact. You abolish their ownership of the means of production and distribution. In short it is possible to vote them out of political power through legal means.

 

[two sheds]

OK we agree to differ on the definitive description of the 'left' in capitalism.

fair do's but i still think it's a bit self defeating to choose your own definition of 'left' and then accuse all left wingers of being "deceitful liars, and manipulative and condescending." If you dropped the rhetoric and just tried to say specifically where peoples' thinking has gone wrong without the insults you might get more support. It's self defeating and i'm not surprised that you've only got 327 members.

In short it is possible to vote them out of political power through legal means.

Not with 327 members

 

[Gravediggers]

fair do's but i still think it's a bit self defeating to choose your own definition of 'left' and then accuse all left wingers of being "deceitful liars, and manipulative and condescending." If you dropped the rhetoric and just tried to say specifically where peoples' thinking has gone wrong without the insults you might get more support. It's self defeating and i'm not surprised that you've only got 327 members.

Not with 327 members

I could not agree with you more. All the more reason to keep plugging away at the case for socialism. To clean up my insulting image perhaps it would help if you could explain where you think "peoples' thinking has gone wrong". No offence meant. A left wing perspective in this regard would be very much appreciated.

 

[two sheds]

I could not agree with you more. All the more reason to keep plugging away at the case for socialism. To clean up my insulting image perhaps it would help if you could explain where you think "peoples' thinking has gone wrong". No offence meant. A left wing perspective in this regard would be very much appreciated.

I think we concentrate too much on competition between people in our society and not enough on cooperation. I'd describe myself socialist rather than left wing, though.

 

[whichfinder]

I think we concentrate too much on competition between people in our society and not enough on cooperation. I'd describe myself socialist rather than left wing, though.

Couldn't agree more on all counts

 

[Gravediggers]

I think we concentrate too much on competition between people in our society and not enough on cooperation. I'd describe myself socialist rather than left wing, though.

Spot on, regrettably a fact of life. So what in your estimate is needed to bring about changes in this situation?

 

[existentialist]

I think we concentrate too much on competition between people in our society and not enough on cooperation. I'd describe myself socialist rather than left wing, though.

Same here. I quite often hear myself describing my views as "small-s socialism". I'm not really interested in political theories, or ideology - my world view tends to come a little from philosophy and quite a lot from a conviction that we all owe a proportion of our efforts to the society we're part of, and I don't like either to be told what I'm thinking, or how I should be thinking.

So when I see the dry and dusty leftism that appears to be being represented on this thread, with its total divorcing from any of the practical realities of life as it is now, and its slavish adherence to tired old dogmas that bear no relation to any reality I know, I realise that I'm not just not left-wing, I'm completely non-aligned. I think political ideology too often becomes a straitjacket for thought and ideas, and I'm pretty sure I'd end up kicked out of any organisation I joined, if only for taking the piss...

 

[two sheds]

Spot on, regrettably a fact of life. So what in your estimate is needed to bring about changes in this situation?

Well anyone who doesn't co-operate gets lined up against a wall, obviously .

 

[Gravediggers]

Same here. I quite often hear myself describing my views as "small-s socialism". I'm not really interested in political theories, or ideology - my world view tends to come a little from philosophy and quite a lot from a conviction that we all owe a proportion of our efforts to the society we're part of, and I don't like either to be told what I'm thinking, or how I should be thinking.

So when I see the dry and dusty leftism that appears to be being represented on this thread, with its total divorcing from any of the practical realities of life as it is now, and its slavish adherence to tired old dogmas that bear no relation to any reality I know, I realise that I'm not just not left-wing, I'm completely non-aligned. I think political ideology too often becomes a straitjacket for thought and ideas, and I'm pretty sure I'd end up kicked out of any organisation I joined, if only for taking the piss...

To think for yourself is not very smart in a left organisation, and taking the piss would definitely mean charges for expulsion. Save yourself the effort and put in an application for the SPGB where you will find like minded free thinking persons who totally reject slavish adherence to tired old dogmas that bear no relation to any reality (to the present). And as for the straitjacket of political ideology it depends on the individual to impose such a device where they can do a plausible imitation of parroting on, and on over the historical texts of so and so. Which IMO destroys the whole concept of thinking for yourself. Bah!

If you do join at least I'll have a companion when I try to take the piss at Conference.

 

[Gravediggers]

Well anyone who doesn't co-operate gets lined up against a wall, obviously .

OK you've done your take on irony and worn out cliches. So lets hear your take on serious discussion.

 

[existentialist]

To think for yourself is not very smart in a left organisation, and taking the piss would definitely mean charges for expulsion.

So there's the problem. One of the ways in which I subconsciously judge people who seek power over me is in seeing how much pisstaking they can handle. A politician who puffs up all outraged when he's being teased isn't someone I feel is going to handle the stresses and strains of power terribly well.

So when I see a political grouping that positively revels in the humourlessness of its outlook, and regards taking the piss as warranting "charges for expulsion", I know I'm looking at an organisaton whose members take themselves far too seriously.

Save yourself the effort and put in an application for the SPGB where you will find like minded free thinking persons who totally reject slavish adherence to tired old dogmas that bear no relation to any reality (to the present). And as for the straitjacket of political ideology it depends on the individual to impose such a device where they can do a plausible imitation of parroting on, and on over the historical texts of so and so. Which IMO destroys the whole concept of thinking for yourself. Bah![/quote]
Thing is, I don't need someone to tell me to "think for myself". Strangely, that is something I manage quite by myself without any prompting. Indeed, my experience is that the outfits busily telling people to "think for yourself" - vide our friends the Scientologists - are very often the outfits for whom the idea of someone REALLY thinking for themselves is abhorrent.

If you do join at least I'll have a companion when I try to take the piss at Conference.

Ah, so humour is permitted? Or are you on the verge of "charges for expulsion" yourself?

 

[Proper Tidy]

To think for yourself is not very smart in a left organisation, and taking the piss would definitely mean charges for expulsion. Save yourself the effort and put in an application for the SPGB where you will find like minded free thinking persons who totally reject slavish adherence to tired old dogmas that bear no relation to any reality (to the present). And as for the straitjacket of political ideology it depends on the individual to impose such a device where they can do a plausible imitation of parroting on, and on over the historical texts of so and so. Which IMO destroys the whole concept of thinking for yourself. Bah!

If you do join at least I'll have a companion when I try to take the piss at Conference.

I'm confused.

You say SPGB is a free-thinking party in which its members do not cling to dogma.

Yet you also state in this thread that every single SPGB member will agree with your views.

So which is it?

Broad church or democratic centralism?

I also don't get the claim on here that SPGB don't try to lead the working class. You do produce literature putting forward your unique interpretation of socialism. You do require applicants to your party to pass an entrance exam. You do, therefore, subscribe to a certain set of principles (or dogma).

The whole basis of your claim appears to be that working class people will choose to subscribe to the SPGB's views, or not, on an entirely voluntary basis.

How is this different?

Your point about left-wing is also entirely pedantic. Yes, the left/right political axis is deeply flawed, inadequate, and open to interpretation. Yes a lot of parties and individuals calling themselves left-wing are capitalist. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that every other party and individual on the 'left' (with the exception of the SPGB obviously) is in fact a deviant reformist guilty of the heinous crimes of deceit, manipulation and condescension?

 

[Gravediggers]

So when I see a political grouping that positively revels in the humourlessness of its outlook, and regards taking the piss as warranting "charges for expulsion", I know I'm looking at an organisaton whose members take themselves far too seriously.


Thing is, I don't need someone to tell me to "think for myself". Strangely, that is something I manage quite by myself without any prompting. Indeed, my experience is that the outfits busily telling people to "think for yourself" - vide our friends the Scientologists - are very often the outfits for whom the idea of someone REALLY thinking for themselves is abhorrent.


Ah, so humour is permitted? Or are you on the verge of "charges for expulsion" yourself?

The SPGB do not tell the membership to 'think for themselves' its an accepted part of being a member. My last attempt of humour at Conference came to abrupt end when the Chair called stop or he would end up being sick! Very unlikely it will lead to 'charges for expulsion' though from the laugh it raised.

 

[Proper Tidy]

My last attempt of humour at Conference came to abrupt end when the Chair called stop or he would end up being sick! Very unlikely it will lead to 'charges for expulsion' though from the laugh it raised.

Please do tell

 

[Gravediggers]

Please do tell

Better still why not attend our next Conference.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Better still why not attend our next Conference.

Is it open to the public or would I need to pass a test?

 

[dannysp]

And out goes any sense of irony; to join humour, sense of perspective, connection to everyday life, empathy and all the rest on the discard pile. An SPGBer accusing someone else of putting forward a 'lame justification' whilst clinging on for dear life to their declaration of principles; but when you've got, had and done nothing else for the best part of a century it's not surprising.

Louis MacNeice

Hi
I'm interested in your take on the small party of good boys declaration of priciples.
Perhaps you could paste them up and demolish them one by one, could be a laugh.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm confused.

You say SPGB is a free-thinking party in which its members do not cling to dogma.

Yet you also state in this thread that every single SPGB member will agree with your views.

So which is it?

Broad church or democratic centralism?

I also don't get the claim on here that SPGB don't try to lead the working class. You do produce literature putting forward your unique interpretation of socialism. You do require applicants to your party to pass an entrance exam. You do, therefore, subscribe to a certain set of principles (or dogma).

The whole basis of your claim appears to be that working class people will choose to subscribe to the SPGB's views, or not, on an entirely voluntary basis.

How is this different?

Your point about left-wing is also entirely pedantic. Yes, the left/right political axis is deeply flawed, inadequate, and open to interpretation. Yes a lot of parties and individuals calling themselves left-wing are capitalist. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that every other party and individual on the 'left' (with the exception of the SPGB obviously) is in fact a deviant reformist guilty of the heinous crimes of deceit, manipulation and condescension?

Every single member would also not agree with my style of argument. Not because they view it has dogma but purely because it tends to lack proportional sensitivity. We all have our own ways of putting over the party case for socialism and there is endless discussion on what members think is appropriate and inappropriate political discourse. And there is no party policy on how the case is put. And if there were party policy on how the case is put that would be dogma - and every party member would agree with me on that.

Just because we have something to say does not mean we are trying to lead the working class in the sense that we tell them what to do. Quite the contrary, we put our case and leave the working class to decide for themselves whether or not it is a valid argument.

I've explained previously the reasons why applicants have to answer a questionnaire which refers to their knowledge on the case for socialism. I can only reiterate that we see no rational for allowing non-socialists into a socialist organisation. And yes the the questionnaire does reflect our principles contained in every party publication. We consider that a socialist party without a set of principles based on socialism is aimless, pointless, and lacks self-discipline.

Yes a basic understanding of the essentials of socialism must be voluntary other wise it fails to harmonise the means with the ends. Just like democracy it is impossible to force certain concepts down peoples throats when they lack understanding on the subject. An example of this is what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And while we are on the subject of supporters we are the only political party, to my knowledge, which allow non-members to make a contribution to the discussion at Conference and also at our Autumn Delegates Meeting.

My remarks on the left wing are IMO are entirely consistent with the view that they are stuck in the capitalist box where they insist that capitalism can be made to work in the interests of the working class in the knowledge that such a claim is untrue. In other words they have no intention of changing the system but think a bit of tinkering with reforms or the suggestion of a few crumbs will serve the impression that they are radicals or revolutionary's. They see no role outside of the capitalist framework.

 

[dannysp]

You may have missed gravediggaz post in which he responded to my probing about the SPGB casting themselves in the role of techers to the w/c by saying that they recognised, along with Marx, that even the educators need educating - placing the party directly in the role of 'the educators'. My question is why does he view them as having that role? How?

That itself is a classic restatement of the vanguardist postion that says it's ok because the exists a dialectical relation ship between the party and the class.

How about "knowledge is power" wich it of course is, let's say I have knowledge and you don't then I'm more powerful than you, but if I share that knowledge with you, the power of that knowledge is more than doubled, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Just a thought.

 

[Gravediggers]

Is it open to the public or would I need to pass a test?

If the front door is open that means there is someone in attendance. Just press the bell. No test required unless of course you don't know how to press a bell?

 

[editor]

How about "knowledge is power" wich it of course is, let's say I have knowledge and you don't then I'm more powerful than you, but if I share that knowledge with you, the power of that knowledge is more than doubled, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Just a thought.

Only if that knowledge is accurate, insightful and of any interest and use. Posting up opinions and declaring them to be 'fact' doesn't empower anyone else.

 

[Gravediggers]

Hi
I'm interested in your take on the small party of good boys declaration of priciples.
Perhaps you could paste them up and demolish them one by one, could be a laugh.

She would not dare do that - it would make her look hysterical.

 

[dannysp]

Only if that knowledge is accurate, insightful and of any interest and use. Posting up opinions and declaring them to be 'fact' doesn't empower anyone else.

Here's some knowledge, the word employ means to use, to exploit.

Knowledge, def.
The state or fact of knowing.
Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

She would not dare do that - it would make her look hysterical.

She would look hysterical? Sexism, historical ignorance and plain stupidity all in one post; well done.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Hi
I'm interested in your take on the small party of good boys declaration of priciples.
Perhaps you could paste them up and demolish them one by one, could be a laugh.

Which ones would you like; the Socialist Party or the Socialist Party of Great Britain? Although they can't both be true can they.

Louis MacNeice