Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

TomR77 said:
As I understand it, the S.P.G.B. ('Socialist Party') does not oppose reforms which benefit the working class, and individual members of the Party may support reforms. However, the Socialist Party will not actively campaign for, or lend support to, reforms. It is a revolutionary party, not a reformist party (i.e. the Party wishes to abolish capitalism, not reform it).

If a political party supports, or campaigns for, reforms, then it must do so as part of the capitalist system, and join and argue with other, capitalist, political parties and organisations in doing so. And it must do so on capitalism's terms, supporting or campaigning for improvements to the capitalist system.

If socialism is to happen, then the abolition of capitalism outright is necessary, rather than simply tinkering with the system. Socialism is not achieved by improving capitalism, or by making capitalism nicer.
Click to expand...

If socialism is to happen, you have to make it happen.

I suggest you read through the thread.
 
Someone mentioned above the campaign to assist miners with pneumoconiosis. No doubt this is a very worthy cause. But it is not a cause for the Socialist Party, which is a political party, not a miners' benevolent association or private health company. Socialists concern themselves with the abolition of capitalism.

Achieving suitable compensation payments for miners is a nice thing to do, but it does not bring us closer to the abolition of the social system which disregarded them in the first place, and put them at needless risk of that terrible disease.

This is a question of logic and reason. If you could administer a cure for a particular cancer, then you administer the cure. You don't give the patient a few extra pillows to make their agonised death feel more comfortable. You cure them. Compensation is nice, it makes the miners' and their families lives more comfortable, but it would have been nicer if we had a social system that would not have permitted this to happen to them in the first place.
 
TomR77 said:
Someone mentioned above the campaign to assist miners with pneumoconiosis. No doubt this is a very worthy cause. But it is not a cause for the Socialist Party, which is a political party, not a miners' benevolent association or private health company. Socialists concern themselves with the abolition of capitalism.

Achieving suitable compensation payments for miners is a nice thing to do, but it does not bring us closer to the abolition of the social system which disregarded them in the first place, and put them at needless risk of that terrible disease.

This is a question of logic and reason. If you could administer a cure for a particular cancer, then you administer the cure. You don't give the patient a few extra pillows to make their agonised death feel more comfortable. You cure them. Compensation is nice, it makes the miners' and their families lives more comfortable, but it would have been nicer if we had a social system that would not have permitted this to happen to them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Do they send you off for re-education if you stray from the company line?
 
I do not have time to read through the whole thread. No normal person would. But I have read through much of it.

You state that we have to make socialism happen. That is nothing more than stating the obvious. The point made by the S.P.G.B. is that to make socialism happen, the overwhelming majority of people much understand and agree with socialism, and must want socialism to happen. That will not be achieved by helping capitalists run capitalism.
 
It's reassuring when the insults start, but it doesn't make for much of a debate.

If you disagree with me, you have a choice - explain why I am wrong and why you are right, or ignore me.

Make a choice.
 
TomR77 said:
I do not have time to read through the whole thread. No normal person would. But I have read through much of it.

You state that we have to make socialism happen. That is nothing more than stating the obvious. The point made by the S.P.G.B. is that to make socialism happen, the overwhelming majority of people much understand and agree with socialism, and must want socialism to happen. That will not be achieved by helping capitalists run capitalism.
Click to expand...

How do you radicalise the working class to the point of wanting socialism to happen?

Is it through dishing out the odd pamphlet?

Or is, in fact, the only way to radicalise the working class through participating in struggle for immediate improvements?

But oh no no, that would be reformism.

I suggest you re-read the post on the page before this that made Gravedigger run away.
 
TomR77 said:
As I understand it, the S.P.G.B. ('Socialist Party') does not oppose reforms which benefit the working class, and individual members of the Party may support reforms. However, the Socialist Party will not actively campaign for, or lend support to, reforms. It is a revolutionary party, not a reformist party (i.e. the Party wishes to abolish capitalism, not reform it).

If a political party supports, or campaigns for, reforms, then it must do so as part of the capitalist system, and join and argue with other, capitalist, political parties and organisations in doing so. And it must do so on capitalism's terms, supporting or campaigning for improvements to the capitalist system.

If socialism is to happen, then the abolition of capitalism outright is necessary, rather than simply tinkering with the system. Socialism is not achieved by improving capitalism, or by making capitalism nicer.
Click to expand...

Just because the SPGB says so doesn't make it true. However, because the SPGB says so, it does consign them to never being more than a briefly and slightly provocative footnote. Here's hoping you enjoy your marginal small print existence.

Louis MacNeice
 
TomR77 said:
It's reassuring when the insults start, but it doesn't make for much of a debate.

If you disagree with me, you have a choice - explain why I am wrong and why you are right, or ignore me.

Make a choice.
Click to expand...

Or we could point and laugh; 'oh look it's another one of those poor fellas disabled by the weight of his century old baggage'.

Louis MacNeice
 
Because of the length of this posting and also due to the problems I'm finding in using the Quote Function correctly I shall reply to this posting in separate messages. My apologies in advance if posters have difficulty in following it all. GD

Proper Tidy said:
But you are relying on an approach of people coming round to your view of socialism based upon theory alone. And it hasn't exactly proven itself to be a successful model has it?

During the last 100 years or so the tactic of reformism and gradualism have been tried over and over again. The declared aim of reformism and gradualism is to increase the politicization and political consciousness of the working class. Yet despite all the effort of campaigning, petitions, demonstrations and legislation this approach has had little if any impact on the working class as a whole or even in any visible growth in the number of supporters for this type of approach.

In fact a claim could be made that such a model of political tactics are counter productive. In that the presumption made by the proponents: Of the class struggle by definition consists of a learning curve, where by direct involvement in the reform of capitalism, the workers are preparing themselves for the revolutionary overthrow of private property, profits and commodity production, etc; is false and in fact the workers have arrived at the radical conclusion that with the absence of any fundamental change in the social relationships of capitalism such an approach is not worth the paper it is written on.

The one message that is not considered is the fact that capitalism welcomes and encourages reforms to the system for it leaves the system intact and motivates further growth in commodity production.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Proper Tidy said:
How do you radicalise the working class to the point of wanting socialism to happen?

Is it through dishing out the odd pamphlet?

Or is, in fact, the only way to radicalise the working class through participating in struggle for immediate improvements?

But oh no no, that would be reformism.

I suggest you re-read the post on the page before this that made Gravedigger run away.
Click to expand...

The first part of your response is sophistry, not argument. The second part of your response - your attempt to construct an argument - demonstrates the fundamental difference between us.

If by 'radicalise' you mean the attempt to increase awareness and support for the socialist case, then the Socialist Party sets out to achieve this in various ways, as you know. The main method is persuasion through reasoned argument and debate, and through dishing out lots of pamphlets, not just the odd pamphlet.

The problem is, your idea of radicalising the working class is very different, because your aim is different. Your aim is not socialism. Your aim is radical social democracy (a left-wing, probably state-run, version of capitalism). Whether you acknowledge it or not, to you, and people like you, a 'radical' is someone who believes in being nice to the working class and other people who you wish to patronise. You think that being nice to the working class brings us closer to socialism.

To me, being nice to the working class, and being radical, are beside the point. I am not radical. In fact, I am one of the most conservative people I know. But I am convinced of the socialist case, because I have been persuaded of it, on rational grounds. If I can be persuaded, then others can be.

You can be as nice to the working class as you like, and you can 'radicalise' as many people as you like, but that will not bring about socialism. The point is to abolish capitalism, not make it nicer.
 
Louis MacNeice said:
Just because the SPGB says so doesn't make it true. However, because the SPGB says so, it does consign them to never being more than a briefly and slightly provocative footnote. Here's hoping you enjoy your marginal small print existence.

Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

Again, this is sophistry. Debate my argument on its merits and flaws. Don't patronise me with twaddle. We all know that just because X person says something is true, that does not make it true. But that does not make it untrue either.
 
Louis MacNeice said:
Or we could point and laugh; 'oh look it's another one of those poor fellas disabled by the weight of his century old baggage'.

Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should just point and laugh at physicists too. Disabled as they are by the weight of all this Newtonian rubbish. Having said that, if you could take a running jump from a very tall building, that would be a powerful statement for the reformist case. It would at least make us all think twice.
 
TomR77 said:
The first part of your response is sophistry, not argument. The second part of your response - your attempt to construct an argument - demonstrates the fundamental difference between us.

If by 'radicalise' you mean the attempt to increase awareness and support for the socialist case, then the Socialist Party sets out to achieve this in various ways, as you know. The main method is persuasion through reasoned argument and debate, and through dishing out lots of pamphlets, not just the odd pamphlet.

The problem is, your idea of radicalising the working class is very different, because your aim is different. Your aim is not socialism. Your aim is radical social democracy (a left-wing, probably state-run, version of capitalism). Whether you acknowledge it or not, to you, and people like you, a 'radical' is someone who believes in being nice to the working class and other people who you wish to patronise. You think that being nice to the working class brings us closer to socialism.

To me, being nice to the working class, and being radical, are beside the point. I am not radical. In fact, I am one of the most conservative people I know. But I am convinced of the socialist case, because I have been persuaded of it, on rational grounds. If I can be persuaded, then others can be.

You can be as nice to the working class as you like, and you can 'radicalise' as many people as you like, but that will not bring about socialism. The point is to abolish capitalism, not make it nicer.
Click to expand...

At least Gravediggers understand the criticisms.

You're just repeating whatever crap you've been brainwashed with.

Okay, so it isn't the odd pamphlet - it is lots of pamphlets! Wahay!

I'm not going to write it out again so you can just answer this:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10584618&postcount=442

Btw, you have no understanding of how the 'radical social-democratic left wing of capitalism' attempts to win people around to socialism.
 
Which were the ones who went round with their pockets stuffed with tenners because they believed the capitalist system was screwed anyway so it didn't matter what they did? Not this lot is it?
 
TomR77 said:
Perhaps we should just point and laugh at physicists too. Disabled as they are by the weight of all this Newtonian rubbish. Having said that, if you could take a running jump from a very tall building, that would be a powerful statement for the reformist case. It would at least make us all think twice.
Click to expand...

You think that you're scientists now? Engineers of the human soul maybe?
 
I understand very well your "criticisms". I ignored them, because they're crap. But just to humour you, I highlight here what I consider to be your central point (quoting you):-

By pushing for immediate demands (and I would say transitional demands which highlight the need for socialism, but then I'm a trot) you are demonstrating what is achievable in an actual, living, practical sense. This method is far more likely to win workers over to the case for genuine socialism.

This is just waffle. What "immediate demands" would you suggest we push for? Perhaps more funding for the NHS? Free woolly jumpers for old grannies? How about free TV licences for all transvestites under-26 (except if you're Australian). Or the global decommissioning of nuclear weapons? You've got your work cut-out there, son. Or worker democracy?

I'm sure you can tell us what you have in mind, but I am not so convinced you can tell us how this would bring us closer to socialism. If capitalism can reform itself for the benefit of workers, then how would this be more likely than not to win workers and others over to the case for socialism?

And what is the relationship between reforms and socialism anyway? One does not necessarily lead to the other. Indeed, some would say it never does. In fact, some of us would even say it has been tried - and it failed, miserably.

I think we have our answer to the puzzle. It was there all along, in front of us. It's in the odd, but telling, phrase you use, 'genuine socialism'.

There is no 'genuine socialism'. It's either socialism or not.
 
Proper Tidy said:
Btw, you have no understanding of how the 'radical social-democratic left wing of capitalism' attempts to win people around to socialism.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I have no understanding whatsoever of how a bunch of precious, constipated, library-lurking, PC-obsessed, graduate, liberal, ultra-hypocritical, Guardian-reading, middle-class toss-pots attempt to win people around to socialism. And in that respect, I will follow Bismarck's famous advice and not ask. How someone who does not understand socialism can persuade someone else of the case for socialism is, in any case, not my affair.
 
There's a thing with cults - cult leader comes out and points out the problems with society (easy task), then points out a simple solution. Followers carry out the simple solution. It doesn't work because they never fucking do.

Then, followers need to find a reason it doesn't work, i.e. find someone to blame for it not working. That's when you start getting problems.
 
You've never had a beard except the many times that you say that you have. There's the dialectic in action - cheers tom the trot - the party can see further than the class.
 
Crikey, you are a proper fuckwit.

How do you intend to win workers around to socialism Tommy boy?

Will they read one of your pamphlets and decide to change the world?

And as for your generalisation of other socialists - well, I can onky assume you've not actually met any.
 
butchersapron said:
Oh tommy, you're going to get eaten alive out in the real world.

Why did an intensely historical approach stop dead in 1905?

What've you got against:

More funding for the NHS
Click to expand...

I have no idea why an intensely historical approach stopped dead in 1905, but I am sure whatever you were going to say in a vain effort to impress us will be correct.

The S.P.G.B. has changed its position on various matters over the years, in light of criticism and experience. That is a matter of public record, unlike other parties who choose to maintain records their records and business affairs under conditions of secrecy. I am sure changes will go on in light of fresh criticism and experience.

And I don;t have anything against more funding for the N.H.S. To the contrary, I support more funding for the N.H.S., provided it is spent in the right way. I have not made any statement on here, or elsewhere, to the contrary. My point, which you do not appear to understand, is that the S.P.G.B. does not support more funding for the N.H.S. There would be no point in doing so - and it would be dishonest to do so - since more funding for the N.H.S. will not bring about socialism, or even help socialism happen, and the aim of the S.P.G.B. is socialism.
 
TomR77 said:
My point, which you do not appear to understand, is that the S.P.G.B. does not support more funding for the N.H.S. There would be no point in doing so - and it would be dishonest to do so - since more funding for the N.H.S. will not bring about socialism, or even help socialism happen, and the aim of the S.P.G.B. is socialism.
Click to expand...

I understand this far batter than you, it's precisely why you're isolated and have no grounding in the real world anymore. There's no ladder between your utopian socialism (as slagged off by Marx) and the real world. You might as well be playing fucking lego.
 
I refer other readers and contributors to the nature of the replies from my opponents on here. In particular, the insults and the failure to actually address my points with reasoned argument. I need say little more.

If you cannot debate with me, then the smart thing for you would be to ignore me.

By insulting me, you merely reveal yourselves for what you are. But please do continue...it is only at your own expense, not mine.
 
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