George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[Louis MacNeice]

How high can they crank this - are there any more pompous SPGB lurkers ready to make the case in public? (Please please let there be)

GD is ready for a tag team switch; he's adjusting the leotard and lacing up the boots as I type.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Again, I refer other readers and posters to this and other comments which are ad hominen and fail to address my points. Others will draw their own conclusions as to the nature, motives and intentions of those who post these remarks.

They already have me old bearded china, they already have.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Again, I refer other readers and posters to this and other comments which are ad hominen and fail to address my points. Others will draw their own conclusions as to the nature, motives and intentions of those who post these remarks.

You can be sure of that Tom.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. that was quick BA!

 

[butchersapron]

It's truly amazing how you SPGBers (not all of course) relate to people outside of the WSM yahoo bunker - it's actually genuinely astounding. You really do think that your task is to educate people.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Once again, by advocating immediate demands, you are doing absolutely nothing to demonstrate to workers the benefits of socialism.

No, you really are demonstrating the benefits of socialism by making and enacting immediate demands. You see, I'm not talking about standing in elections every now and again, like SPGB. I'm talking about, you know, struggle - that thing SPGB seem to reject.

You are demonstrating to workers that a united and organised working class can achieve change above and beyond the parliamentary process.

Let me give you an example - do you think the miners were more or less radicalised during the miners strike?

Do you think the people of Liverpool were more or less radicalised during the Liverpool 47?

In short, how do you intend to bring about revolution, other than just waiting around for it to happen?

You don't seem to grasp that revolution cannot happen until you have a revolutionary situation; until you have the correct conditions for a revolution to take place.

I suspect your ideological leaders don't actually want socialism. What they want is a small band of bearded merry men who will hang on their every word.

Basically, you're a book club, aren't you? A small and very exclusive book club.

 

[TomR77]

It's truly amazing how you SPGBers (not all of course) relate to people outside of the WSM yahoo bunker - it's actually genuinely astounding. You really do think that your task is to educate people.

I think no such thing, and I do not represent the S.P.G.B. on here, although I am persuaded of their case. I am simply putting across my own arguments and my understanding of the S.P.G.B.'s position. I ask that you respond and address my points, which, by and large, you have not done so far. You are free to do as you wish of course, but I welcome criticism, not condescension and insults.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's truly amazing how you SPGBers (not all of course) relate to people outside of the WSM yahoo bunker - it's actually genuinely astounding. You really do think that your task is to educate people.

To be fair I think the anonymity provided by the internet doesn't help reign back their pomposity; the ones I've met over the years have exhibited far greater social skills than either GD or Tom.

Perhaps we're being used as a training ground; they work out here in preparation for entry to the real world.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Proper Tidy]

I do not represent the S.P.G.B. on here, although I am persuaded of their case.

Oh. Did you fail the test Tom?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think no such thing, and I do not represent the S.P.G.B. on here, although I am persuaded of their case. I am simply putting across my own arguments and my understanding of the S.P.G.B.'s position. I ask that you respond and address my points, which, by and large, you have not done so far. You are free to do as you wish of course, but I welcome criticism, not condescension and insults.

Wonderful, just wonderful!

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

To be fair I think the anonymity provided by the internet doesn't help reign back their pomposity; the ones I've met over the years have exhibited far greater social skills than either GD or Tom.

Perhaps we're being used as a training ground; they work out here in preparation for entry to the real world.

Louis MacNeice

That's true of my experience too, and, as i said earlier, it's disappointing for that reason. It's baffling.

 

[Gravediggers]

How high can they crank this - are there any more pompous SPGB lurkers ready to make the case in public? (Please please let there be)

Indeed there are butchers. We have requested the SPEW to a public debate on several occasions to my knowledge. Three times in the North East and two times in London. With no reply to any of them.

I wonder why???

Observers and contributors to the board can draw their own conclusions.

 

[butchersapron]

... I ask that you respond and address my points, which, by and large, you have not done so far. You are free to do as you wish of course, but I welcome criticism, not condescension and insults.

What you welcome and what you get are going to be different things.

Come down the real world and we can discuss oh so fruitfully.

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed there are butchers. We have requested the SPEW to a public debate on several occasions to my knowledge. Three times in the North East and two times in London. With no reply to any of them.

I wonder why???

Observers and contributors to the board can draw their own conclusions.

That they're not that bothered with ye?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Indeed there are butchers. We have requested the SPEW to a public debate on several occasions to my knowledge. Three times in the North East and two times in London. With no reply to any of them.

I wonder why???

Observers and contributors to the board can draw their own conclusions.

Because it would be a waste of their time?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I was expecting something better from you GD...I think Tom probably was as well.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you SPGBers agree with this:

The weapon of criticism cannot in any case replace the criticism of weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force...

 

[editor]

Observers and contributors to the board can draw their own conclusions.

I'm sure they've already drawn their own conclusions after your fascination observations about the Welsh people - who apparently aren't even Welsh people at all, according to you.

That aside, nationalism by its very nature is divisive for the working class who have no country worth calling their 'own'. I hesitate to call them the Welsh people for the Cymro ceased to exist with the introduction of the industrial revolution and the constant immigration since.

You then crowned that loads of codswallop with this gem, "The workers have no need for the self imposed chains of national identity."

No idea who elected you to speak on their behalf, but every Welsh worker I've ever met has been more than happy to wear the (chortle) 'chains' of their identity.

 

[TomR77]

No, you really are demonstrating the benefits of socialism by making and enacting immediate demands. You see, I'm not talking about standing in elections every now and again, like SPGB. I'm talking about, you know, struggle - that thing SPGB seem to reject.

You are demonstrating to workers that a united and organised working class can achieve change above and beyond the parliamentary process.

Let me give you an example - do you think the miners were more or less radicalised during the miners strike?

Do you think the people of Liverpool were more or less radicalised during the Liverpool 47?

In short, how do you intend to bring about revolution, other than just waiting around for it to happen?

You don't seem to grasp that revolution cannot happen until you have a revolutionary situation; until you have the correct conditions for a revolution to take place.

I suspect your ideological leaders don't actually want socialism. What they want is a small band of bearded merry men who will hang on their every word.

Basically, you're a book club, aren't you? A small and very exclusive book club.

I do understand where you are coming from, and before we go any further, I think it should be said that, to an extent, we both have this problem of "saying the same thing, but in a different way". I agree with you that in order for revolution to happen, the conditions of revolution must exist. I consider that obvious. Where we disagree is how those conditions can be brought about.

My opposition here is not to the idea of struggle or reform, as such. Rather, my opposition is to the idea of leadership and manipulation of workers. Your entire posture is one of talking-down to workers (and I do not mean that as an insult).

In my view, any struggle must be an informed struggle. If you attempt to bring about change by leading people, which is what you are really advocating - you call it 'radicalising' workers - you will not bring about socialism. What you will bring about is a different form of capitalism, which will preserve the system's essential and inherent features, because the struggle you initiated to bring it into being was comprised of those essential and inherent features.

I'll take one of your comments:-

"you really are demonstrating the benefits of socialism by making and enacting immediate demands".

It's not my intention to quote you out of context, but when you make and enact these immediate demands, you are acting as a capitalist and you are, in a fashion, improving the operation of the wages system. As much as you may wish it were otherwise, you are in fact doing nothing to bring about socialism.

Whether we are talking about a workers' struggle within capitalism, or a specific reform of capitalism, in both cases the workers involved may be radicalised, but they are no nearer to socialist consciousness. They are fighting within the capitalist system. Whereas the point is to abolish the system itself, the workers in your struggle are seeking to improve their position within the system.

Instead of campaigning for employment, workers should be campaigning for unemployment. Instead of campaigning for higher wages, workers should be campaigning for abolition of wages.

By campaigning for employment and higher wages, or whatever is the flavour of the moment, workers are simply campaigning for their own exploitation.

Having said this, I do realise that we have only come to this point in our democratic forms under capitalism due to the past capitalist struggles of workers and others who supported them. I am not blind to this, and I realise that these struggles will and must continue so long as capitalism continues. However, socialism can only happen when people understand, agree with and want it to happen for themselves, not because some leader says so.

 

[butchersapron]

I do understand where you are coming from, and before we go any further, I think it should be said that, to an extent, we both have this problem of "saying the same thing, but in a different way". I agree with you that in order for revolution to happen, the conditions of revolution must exist. I consider that obvious. Where we disagree is how those conditions can be brought about.

How do you then view these conditions as coming about

It's not my intention to quote you out of context, but when you make and enact these immediate demands, you are acting as a capitalist and you are, in a fashion, improving the operation of the wages system.

It is mine. Read Marx, he'll tell you what a capitalist is.

 

[TomR77]

How do you then view these conditions as coming about

When people like you start arguing for it, and when the majority of people are convinced that socialism is necessary.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I do understand where you are coming from, and before we go any further, I think it should be said that, to an extent, we both have this problem of "saying the same thing, but in a different way". I agree with you that in order for revolution to happen, the conditions of revolution must exist. I consider that obvious. Where we disagree is how those conditions can be brought about.

My opposition here is not to the idea of struggle or reform, as such. Rather, my opposition is to the idea of leadership and manipulation of workers. Your entire posture is one of talking-down to workers (and I do not mean that as an insult).

In my view, any struggle must be an informed struggle. If you attempt to bring about change by leading people, which is what you are really advocating - you call it 'radicalising' workers - you will not bring about socialism. What you will bring about is a different form of capitalism, which will preserve the system's essential and inherent features, because the struggle you initiated to bring it into being was comprised of those essential and inherent features.

I'll take one of your comments:-

"you really are demonstrating the benefits of socialism by making and enacting immediate demands".

It's not my intention to quote you out of context, but when you make and enact these immediate demands, you are acting as a capitalist and you are, in a fashion, improving the operation of the wages system. As much as you may wish it were otherwise, you are in fact doing nothing to bring about socialism.

Whether we are talking about a workers' struggle within capitalism, or a specific reform of capitalism, in both cases the workers involved may be radicalised, but they are no nearer to socialist consciousness. They are fighting within the capitalist system. Whereas the point is to abolish the system itself, the workers in your struggle are seeking to improve their position within the system.

Instead of campaigning for employment, workers should be campaigning for unemployment. Instead of campaigning for higher wages, workers should be campaigning for abolition of wages.

By campaigning for employment and higher wages, or whatever is the flavour of the moment, workers are simply campaigning for their own exploitation.

Having said this, I do realise that we have only come to this point in our democratic forms under capitalism due to the past capitalist struggles of workers and others who supported them. I am not blind to this, and I realise that these struggles will and must continue so long as capitalism continues. However, socialism can only happen when people understand, agree with and want it to happen for themselves, not because some leader says so.

Well, first of all, thanks for actually coming back with a reasoned response.

I do think you over-egg the idea of leading the working class, although there is an element of that.

However, the idea is not to lead the working class blindly; but to educate workers in addition to radicalising, or leading into struggle if you will. A dual process, not one or the other.

In effect, this is no different to your strategy - you attempt to educate workers with a socialist consciousness; as do we. You, however, reject the notion of attempting to help create the necessary conditions. Ergo, your criticism - that other socialists do not instill a socialist consciousness - falls down.

More to the point, you must accept that the conditions neccesary for socialism are not going to come about spontaneously. So how do you reach that point?

If I may say so, and this isn't an insult, your approach does not seem to be very Marxian. In fact, it appears to contradict some of the most fundamental aspects of Marxism, hence Butchers criticism that you are utopian; a view I share. I would further add that SPGB is impossibilist.

I appreciate SPGB are hostile to the various forms of Leninism and vangaurdism but you also appear to be hostile to classical Marxism.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm sure they've already drawn their own conclusions after your fascination observations about the Welsh people - who apparently aren't even Welsh people at all, according to you.

You then crowned that loads of codswallop with this gem, "The workers have no need for

No idea who elected you to speak on their behalf, but every Welsh worker I've ever met has been more than happy to wear the (chortle) 'chains' of their identity.

They are Welsh by residency only. According to Professor Steven Jones - a Taffy from Swansea - and a renowned expert in DNA the Cymro gene has been so diluted by the immigration of people from the four corners of the globe it hardly exists.


"The self imposed chains of national identity." by definition includes identifying yourself has a commodity. Which is the main reason I refer to myself as a Citizen of the World, and possibly provide scope to explain why my preference for such a tag.

 

[butchersapron]

When people like you start arguing for it, and when the majority of people are convinced that socialism is necessary.

So you're not a marxist then. Ok.

You're a counter-revolutionary group by this analysis anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

When people like you start arguing for it, and when the majority of people are convinced that socialism is necessary.

But, are there any real political conditions? Dip your toe in the water of life for a while.

 

[Proper Tidy]

They are Welsh by residency only. According to Professor Steven Jones - a Taffy from Swansea - and a renowned expert in DNA the Cymro gene has been so diluted by the immigration of people from the four corners of the globe it hardly exists.

Crikey. You're supposed to be a socialist not some sort of deranged eugenics nutter.

The Cymro gene? Dear gods.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm hoping that was a rare glimpse of 'umour.

 

[TomR77]

Well, first of all, thanks for actually coming back with a reasoned response.

I do think this is a bit rich. Yes, I have insulted your arguments, and I have also make a few general jokes and insults, but I have not attacked or insulted you personally.

You, on the other hand, together with your friends, have insulted me personally and repeatedly.

I really think you need to stop patronising myself and others, and stop insulting people just because they may disagree with you in a firm manner.

Having said that, you have again responded to my comments, and I thank you for that. I will add my own response below.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I do think this is a bit rich. Yes, I have insulted your arguments, and I have also make a few general jokes and insults, but I have not attacked or insulted you personally.

You, on the other hand, together with your friends, have insulted me personally and repeatedly.

I really think you need to stop patronising myself and others, and stop insulting people just because they may disagree with you in a firm manner.

Having said that, you have again responded to my comments, and I thank you for that. I will add my own response below.

Yeah - I didn't mean insults. I mean the fact that all your previous responses have been text-book automaton preachy statements that haven't actually answered any of the criticisms made. You do at least seem to have rectified this, although GD ruined this effect somewhat by bringing up something called 'the Cymro gene'. Anyhoo.

Also, I only joined this board a few days back, and (as far as I know) I don't know any other posters in the real world. This isn't a group of friends ganging up on you; it is a group of strangers who disagree with you.

 

[Gravediggers]

Crikey. You're supposed to be a socialist not some sort of deranged eugenics nutter.

The Cymro gene? Dear gods.

Careful, if Steve Jones sees that he would soon put you right on the difference between eugenics and genetics. He hates them more than you hate the SPGB.

 

[butchersapron]

What is this welsh gene then?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Careful, if Steve Jones sees that he would soon put you right on the difference between eugenics and genetics. He hates them more than you hate the SPGB.

What does genetics have to do with an individual's sense of nationality though?