George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[pfbcarlisle]

Hi PT,
Cheers for the reply. If it is too time-consuming for us, I’m happy to bow out acknowledging I haven’t managed to convince re. the SPGB.
Some points still to make if I may.

I agree that the material and ideological realms certainly inter-relate. At some point people need to realise that the money game is not one we can win. Certainly we have to learn from previous political revolutions and events like the Miner’s Strike. Such events are catalysts for people’s ideas changing rapidly; for ‘good’ or ‘ill’. I suspect the revolutionary transformation needed for socialism – defined here as a classless, stateless, moneyless society – can not be like any other previous revolution.

Attempts to “impose” socialism will always fail. It has to be the action and will of the immense majority, as that fella said. Hence I’m not in favour of any shortcuts which may well be successful for toppling a regime, but not for the societal transformation that is socialism.

We know there’s no fail-safe blueprint, obviously, given that humanity has never yet put an end to capitalism. And all those ‘100% Guaranteed to Work or Your Money Back!’ books on the internet offering the answers to everything, have thus far let me down badly.

Socialism requires a large majority of people – not just here in the UK, but worldwide/the ‘advanced’ economies at the least - understanding and wanting to change production for profit to production for use; to end class division, and the money system in general.

By living and working in society we’re part of the on-going process of class struggle, with the Party concentrating on the ‘ideas’ side of it. Ultimately, it’s about being part of the worldwide movement of the immense majority – the working class; getting ideas across and hoping that they are taken up and become main-stream. We can do that tangibly by pointing out aspects of life today which prefigure – or at last would form an essential feature of – a genuinely co-operative society.

You’re right to say that “If merely putting forward the case for socialism was enough, then we would have socialism.” What’s needed is the conjunction mentioned of lived experience meeting ideas; ideas which the vast majority of people tend not to come across. These ideas can and do arise independently of this specific party or another – e.g. I hear that the Zeitgeist ‘movement’ has the idea of a moneyless world, which they didn’t get from either of us.

“That is utopianism. Through the ballot box? We will never have socialism if that is the case. We do not abstain from electoral politics; but neither are we under any illusions about what is called democracy under capitalism.”

As I said, it’s one aspect. I agree with Marx’s point that in places with established parliamentary traditions it may be possible to use peaceful means. No illusion at all re the shortcomings of liberal democracy as we have it today. The idea of using it is that a growing socialist population can use the ballot box to elect mps (effectively as their mandated delegates) solely on the basis of support for abolishing the money system; backed up by whatever else is going on in society in terms of workers gaining control of industry/production/communities etc.

“But again, how to enact the complete transformation of society? Either SPGB do not have a position on this other than to defer it to a conscious majority movement of the working class …”

Yeah, it’s the first of the options you give. A complete transformation, with or without us (SPGB) in formal terms. We’re just one potential instrument for workers to use. For me, there is no such thing as a movement from socialism to communism. I stick to maintaining that Marx used them interchangeably. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/socialist_equality.htm)

There is movement from capitalism to socialism/communism. A transformation can be a short process given the material basis already being in place, and once a socialist minded majority have captured political power. I do think this *is* a materialist view: economic basis in place + large majority understanding and wanting to end capitalism = short process.

Not if we just think in terms of a revolution in one country, obviously. Given the reality that capitalism is a world system, and given the ‘global village’ nature of our world, it’s hard to believe that a large conscious socialist majority can develop within one country and not be reflected in what’s happening elsewhere.

The long process is what’s going on now in society, our class needing to attain the aforementioned consciousness. Certainly, as you say, we can’t ignore a societal need to plan or put a framework in place – such planning is what’s needed now within capitalism, and not after a palace coup. We need that vision of what is possible.

(Re. the Dictatorship of the proletariat) “I disagree, and it is not based solely upon Marx’s “‘lower and higher phase’ comments”.

Ok, I take your point, but words and concepts – (derived from reality) - give life to actions and consequences. It may well be based on more than a misreading of the Gotha Programme, but we do have the fact that a tradition has arisen which gives us a concept of a society *in between* that of capitalism and socialism(communism). One I reject.

“But even a minority, if they still have control of the means of production, could and would derail transformation, either by counter-revolution or provoking defrormity and authoritarianism.”

If the means of production are not in the hands of the majority, pending effective abolition of classes, then we haven’t had a socialist revolution. As stated, there may be resistance, and that will have to be dealt with.

“(Regards to Wrecsam and the mighty Crusaders RL)
“I might be warmer on the Cru if they weren’t just a commercial franchise with no roots in or links to the community, but that is another story! We are, and I should imagine will remain, a football town.”

Fair enough! I suspect that in 5 years time, there will be no Super League in town; but I hope it ain’t so
Ta-ta for now.

 

[TomR77]

"A democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few."

A society "run for". Who runs this society?

 

[Proper Tidy]

"A democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few."

A society "run for". Who runs this society?

The clue is in the first bit Tom.

 

[lewislewis]

I wasn't joking at the expense of the working class. I was joking at the expense of the Squeegees, and its nothing to get worked up over.

Yeah, I think decentralised socialism is the same thing - heard reference to community socialism from them too, so I assume they all mean the same thing. What that is I don't fucking know.

You're right that there is no theoretical definition. They used to use the term community socialism (first adopted during Dafydd Wigley's tenure) and then moved to decentralist socialism. It is a hodge-podge of egalitarian theories based on the works of DJ Davies and Raymond Williams, "co-operatives and stuff" as one Plaid member once told me. The choice of the words decentralist (or community) was intended to distinguish Plaid from the perceived 'top-down' and centralising tendencies of their bitter Old Labour rivals.

You're right that it's a weakness that Plaid haven't defined it properly, but I don't think there's a pressing need to. Plaid's political tradition has evolved quite naturally in any case and the party's aim is to win elections in order to advance the constitutional status of Wales and implement the policies in its manifestos.

Also, let's not let the fact Plaid haven't theoretically defined their socialism gloss over the idea that there were significant anarcho-syndicalist, socialist (several cross overs from the early Independent Labour Party) and later Marxist influences on what was a party whose original leaders and rank-and-file emerged from the Welsh-speaking liberal Home Rule movement.

Also any discussion of Plaid's ideology should not fall into the trap of believing that 'their rural base is conservative', the rural base of Plaid is actually among radical Welsh-speaking liberals, with significant influences from non-conformism, pacifism, the Quakers etc.

My personal educated belief is that Plaid is a mainstream civic nationalist party that practices social democratic politics, but with a decentralised structure and political tradition that lends itself to radicalism in a way that none of the other mainstream parties do.

 

[lewislewis]

I had been wondering how an interesting thread about Plaid had ended up being hijacked by a mob of SPGB types, but I had given you lot the benefit of the doubt in not assuming that it was some kind of spoling tactic.

Precisely, there are alot of limitations to Plaid* and as a supporter of theirs I would not mind going through those limitations on a detailed thread. This one has failed to fulfil that role because of the dire and dusty SPGB hijacking.

* There are also of course huge advantages to Plaid compared with any other vehicle or organisation in Welsh society that can get a fair hearing from a large number of ordinary people.

 

[Proper Tidy]

You're right that there is no theoretical definition. They used to use the term community socialism (first adopted during Dafydd Wigley's tenure) and then moved to decentralist socialism. It is a hodge-podge of egalitarian theories based on the works of DJ Davies and Raymond Williams, "co-operatives and stuff" as one Plaid member once told me. The choice of the words decentralist (or community) was intended to distinguish Plaid from the perceived 'top-down' and centralising tendencies of their bitter Old Labour rivals.

You're right that it's a weakness that Plaid haven't defined it properly, but I don't think there's a pressing need to. Plaid's political tradition has evolved quite naturally in any case and the party's aim is to win elections in order to advance the constitutional status of Wales and implement the policies in its manifestos.

Also, let's not let the fact Plaid haven't theoretically defined their socialism gloss over the idea that there were significant anarcho-syndicalist, socialist (several cross overs from the early Independent Labour Party) and later Marxist influences on what was a party whose original leaders and rank-and-file emerged from the Welsh-speaking liberal Home Rule movement.

Also any discussion of Plaid's ideology should not fall into the trap of believing that 'their rural base is conservative', the rural base of Plaid is actually among radical Welsh-speaking liberals, with significant influences from non-conformism, pacifism, the Quakers etc.

My personal educated belief is that Plaid is a mainstream civic nationalist party that practices social democratic politics, but with a decentralised structure and political tradition that lends itself to radicalism in a way that none of the other mainstream parties do.

Honest response, cheers. I'd find it difficult to disagree with much of that; and I agree with your characterisation of Plaid as a left nationalist rather than a socialist party, as some Plaid members maintain. I would contend that there are conservative elements within Plaid, although I wouldn't suggest these comprise anything more than a minority and a fairly marginalised one at that.

 

[phildwyer]

there were significant anarcho-syndicalist, socialist (several cross overs from the early Independent Labour Party) and later Marxist influences on what was a party whose original leaders and rank-and-file emerged from the Welsh-speaking liberal Home Rule movement.

There were significant Fascist influences too, let's not forget that. It's always going to be a danger with a nationalist party.

 

[Proper Tidy]

There were significant Fascist influences too, let's not forget that. It's always going to be a danger with a nationalist party.

Saunders Lewis was imo a cunt and an embarrassment to Plaid but I'm not convinced he was a fascist. Enamoured with totalitarianism though - he certainly admired the European fascist movements.

 

[phildwyer]

Saunders Lewis was imo a cunt and an embarrassment to Plaid but I'm not convinced he was a fascist. Enamoured with totalitarianism though - he certainly admired the European fascist movements.

The bugger was English too.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The bugger was English too.

Ah Wallasey didn't count, not back then - they all spoke Welsh round there anyway! He was a bloody monarchist too though wasn't he? I know a Plaid fella who gets a chubby over the monarchy. Same with that Jan Morris, she loves Queenie - I never get that. Surely Welsh nats should be republican?

"At once he fulfilled his promise — a promise which was greatly mocked by the London papers months before that — to completely abolish the financial strength of the Jews in the economic life of Germany." Saunders Lewis on Hitler, 1936.

 

[TomR77]

The clue is in the first bit Tom.

A "democratic society" could mean anything. I think your language betrays more than you might like.

 

[Proper Tidy]

A "democratic society" could mean anything. I think your language betrays more than you might like.

Oh do shut up. We're quite clear that we reject tops down parliamentary democracy and seek a genuine form of democracy, workers self-management, etc. Why don't you familiarise yourself with the different parties and traditions first, you might not make a fool out of yourself so much then.

Using language people understand and can relate to isn't a sign of weakness. Likewise, being overly wordy doesn't impress anybody.

You may struggle with this, but we accept Marx and Engels' vision of what we would define as the higher stage of socialism. You can look at our website, or buy the Socialist, or even better get stuck into Marx. I'm sure everybody else would find it less tedious too.

 

[TomR77]

Oh do shut up. We're quite clear that we reject tops down parliamentary democracy and seek a genuine form of democracy, workers self-management, etc. Why don't you familiarise yourself with the different parties and traditions first, you might not make a fool out of yourself so much then.

Using language people understand and can relate to isn't a sign of weakness. Likewise, being overly wordy doesn't impress anybody.

You may struggle with this, but we accept Marx and Engels' vision of what we would define as the higher stage of socialism. You can look at our website, or buy the Socialist, or even better get stuck into Marx. I'm sure everybody else would find it less tedious too.

A debate would be better than insults. By insulting me, you do not win the argument. When it boils down to it, nearly-all of your arguments on here have been ad hominen. Merely saying I am wrong or ignorant or fool or whatever does not mean I am wrong. It's a common tactic for people on the internet, but I hope others will see through it. I have read Marx, but I do not claim to fully understand it. I think only a particularly immature or arrogant person would make such a claim.

I think if you examined your comments on here objectively, you would have to acknowledge you are contradicting yourself. Workers self-management, for instance, is capitalism, not socialism. Most capitalists would be more than delighted to introduce workers self-management or workers' democracy. Of course, there are contradictions in all political arguments, I accept that, but your contradictions are pointed.

Your response to this, of course, is to say I am not understanding you. Your arguments are far too nuanced and subtle for a mere worker to understand, we all know that. You need to be "understood". You are in fact trying to disseminate socialist ideas by showing workers what they can achieve practically for themselves. Yes, of course. How did I miss it?

The problem is, workers are not achieving anything practically for themselves that they owe to you. Higher wages, better working conditions, greater job security, all make capitalism more secure for the capitalists, who are more than delighted to accommodate your reforms...ahem...sorry...."improvements". You're a mug. I know that's ad hominen, but it's also a reasonably grounded observation made in light of substantive criticism and your wriggling on this thread against my clear, logical criticisms, which anyone can go back and read. You have been saved from further scrutiny by a number of bullies who have come to your rescue. None of them are your friends or know you from Adam, but they all share your urge to attack, attack, attack anyone who disagrees with the prevailing wisdom.

Now, I know you like to rely on the numbers game, but having a numerical majority does not make you right. Your reliance on that only demonstrates one of the admitted flaws in both our arguments - democracy can be nasty too. Of course, my apologies, I do not "understand" you. That is always the problem for your enemies - you're a genius and no-one understands you.

The real difference between us is that, while I acknowledge the validity of struggle (and the S.P.G.B. itself applauds generally the achievements of reformists which benefit the working class), I believe the means and the ends are linked, that a revolutionary struggle can only be successful when it is undertaken by conscious workers, who must form an overwhelmingly majority. Without consciousness, the struggle is hopeless, no matter how noble your intentions. Whereas you believe that a minority of informed revolutionaries (people who "understand") can lead workers in revolutionary struggle, and ultimately inculcate them with socialist consciousness, I point to the fact - and it is fact - that this method, clever as it is, has already been tried, and tried and tried and tried again, and it has failed spectacularly. That course is doomed. I do't doubt your own honourable motives and good intentions - your passion on this thread demonstrates it - but you will be betrayed by others who, lacking your scruple, will set out to remodel capitalism into another form (workers self-management anyone?).

The same fate as your predecessors awaits you - history demonstrates this.

 

[TomR77]

Using language people understand and can relate to isn't a sign of weakness. Likewise, being overly wordy doesn't impress anybody.

The term, "democratic control" is precise. There is little room for doubt as to what it would mean in practice viz control of the means of production, and so on. The term "democratic society" could mean anything, and could be manipulated to mean anything.

It is naive in the extreme to suggest this is "language people understand". It is also an astonishing contradiction against your own general political position, as articulated on here.

Some people will think they know what is meant by a "democratic society", but the term is conveniently loose enough to mean all kinds of things.

 

[TomR77]

You may struggle with this, but we accept Marx and Engels' vision of what we would define as the higher stage of socialism. You can look at our website, or buy the Socialist, or even better get stuck into Marx. I'm sure everybody else would find it less tedious too.

Oh come now! I am familiar with these arguments. You may have a socialist vision, distilled from some dry, dusty books, but that hardly proves anything and is a totally inadequate response to my point, which is that by pursuing capitalist demands without any attempt to propagate the socialist case, you are - almost by your own admission - improving capitalism and doing little or nothing to advance the case for socialism.

 

[TomR77]

Oh do shut up. We're quite clear that we reject tops down parliamentary democracy and seek a genuine form of democracy, workers self-management, etc. Why don't you familiarise yourself with the different parties and traditions first, you might not make a fool out of yourself so much then.

No, I will not shut up, and I will not be silenced by wailing bullies.

Workers self-management is not democracy. Workers self-management is capitalism.

If you achieve workers self-management, you will have assisted in cementing the capitalist system, and you will have done nothing to advance the case for socialism.

Socialism will be achieved by people propagating the case for socialism. Only when an overwhelming majority agree with that case will any struggles be effective. I accept that intermediary struggles have a role, and as more and more people become aware of the case for socialism, such struggles will increasingly turn on the actual dismantling of the capitalist system. There is a grey area - which is why I do not dismiss your arguments out of hand, nor do I doubt your good intentions.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Death by a thousand cuts

 

[Gravediggers]

Some queries and doubts...


Some queries and doubts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
Firstly, this is in recognition of the fact that all past revolutions have been minority revolutions led by an emerging ruling class,

All past revolutions?

So you think that, for example, the Spanish Revolution of 1936, the Zapatista revolution in Chiapas etc were led by an emerging ruling class...or only those that succeeded in seizing state power...and holding it.

Yes. They were not socialist revolutions.

Quote:
and that the socialist revolution will be historically different in form and content - it has to be - otherwise it wont be socialist.

What exactly would these differences be?

The revolutionary majority will be committed to completing the revolutionary process without resorting to a supposedly enlightened leadership. They have become transformed in struggle and are thinking for themselves for a change, and are in fact, "A class for itself" instead of, "A class in itself" (Marx). In order to ensure the transformation takes place with as little disruption has possible the workers will be organising themselves ready in anticipation of the introduction of common ownership and free access.

This will include: Deciding on the political structure which is relative to the change in social relationships; anticipating the production and distribution of products; calculating the inputs and outputs of the economy. IMO to go any further would be utopian and undemocratic. I can only provide the basic framework.

 

[Gravediggers]

Death by a thousand cuts

You are not doing yourself any favours or the debate by degrading the political consciousness of the working class by making flippant assertions. You are definitely wiggling by resorting to the indefensible.

TomR77 it seems is taking your assumptions head on.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The same fate as your predecessors awaits you - history demonstrates this.

That's not all history 'demonstrates' is it Tom? By the way that's a touching peronification of 'history'.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You are not doing yourself any favours or the debate by degrading the political consciousness of the working by making flippant assertions.

Another one for the scrap book; keep 'em coming.

Louis MacNeice

btw - why no reply to my question about the dreadful poetry?

 

[Gravediggers]

Some queries and doubts...

You really think the ballot box isaen effective way of measuring a majority/minority support for anything? nevermind committment to a socialist revolution? Really?

There are so many problems with this, its seems to me to be insurmountable....


Admittedly that on the surface there appear to be insurmountable problems with using parliament. Not knowing what you see as the problems may I refer you to this link in anticipation they cover your concerns.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/20C/Parliament_update.html

With the present political process available to us the ballot box is the only means for measuring majority support for a socialist revolution. Some have argued that a measurement on direct action and demonstrations are a way of gauging support. They may well be in some respects but rarely is such activity directed at a change in the social relationships. Whereas a ballot on voting socialist delegates into the seat of power is a direct and precise means of confirming support for a socialist revolution.

Caretaker implies doing it on someone elses' behalf to me. Though I'm sure that's not what you mean. But still I find this judeo-christian idea a little "off". What do you mean by this?

A bad choice of words perhaps. OK, lets put it another way to you. Capitalism is notorious for degrading and destroying the environment for profitable ends where any sense of responsibility towards the environment only comes into play when there is a further profit to be made.

Whereas in socialism we will be conscious of the fact that we as humans are as much dependent on the environment as the environment is dependent on us. In short what is the point of shitting up your nest when we have the tools and knowledge to work with planet earth so its of benefit to us both.

It is not a judeo-christian idea for the idea is apparent in most peoples history. The american indians for example are well known for understanding the interdependency between humans and the environment.

 

[TomR77]

Ah, the cavalry has arrived. Louis, who lacks the courage to insult people under his own name, has weighed in with his usual, tiresome flippancy, as if half-witted witticisms prove anything. It's getting boring now, Louis - isn't it time to go back to the Mechano set, young sir? And where is that Butcher fella? Isn't it time for him to arrive on the scene and start making snide remarks?

What I've come to notice in this discussion (I would call it 'discussion' rather than 'debate'), is how those who try to defend the broad approach taken by far-Left parties, always seem to resort to insults, jokes or flippant remarks when faced with a clear and cutting criticism.

Now, I wouldn't mind if most of it was funny or witty. I actually liked Proper Tidy's quip about whether I'd failed the S.P.G.B. exam. It was a good joke and made me chuckle. But the rest of it, frankly, has been pathetic and unfunny, and to be honest with you, it's starting to become irritating now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim to be perfectly-mannered myself, nor do I believe my arguments are flawless, but by insulting myself and GD, all you are doing is casting yourselves in a bad light. Trying to break-up threads and distract from valid comments by using insult and ad hominen is a bad tactic, and it makes people wonder what you are afraid of. Could it be that the S.P.G.B. critique touches a nerve? I certainly think the logic and clarity of the S.P.G.B. case is appealing to people who have not heard it previously. Does that worry you?

Personally, I accept that the S.P.G.B. case has flaws and problems, but I would rather hold my clear and logical position than your muddled and dishonest position. Yes, the reformist approach is tempting, and I accept there are subtleties. But in the end, reform is no substitute for socialism, and uninformed struggle is no substitute for clear and accurate analysis.

I'm afraid the truth is that in the end, we are either socialists or we are not socialists. If you try to mediate a 'grey' position in between, you'll receive high marks for theological reflexivity, but low marks for effectiveness. Most capitalists would welcome a SPEW or SWP government - it's just another chance to get these mugs into the boardroom and get them co-opted into the system. The capitalists are not afraid of people like Proper Tidy - to the contrary, his ideas are a very nice distraction, and with the promise of socialism too. Perfect. A nice little stitch-up.

What scares the capitalists is a properly informed working class. When people become aware of the S.P.G.B. case, it changes them. When people become aware of your case, it changes nothing. It's just the same old jam tomorrow crap, re-branded, that we've heard for the last hundred years, and it's the same crap we'll have for a hundred more, unless more people have the courage of their convictions and start propagating the socialist case.

 

[TomR77]

I mentioned earlier the importance of linking the means to the ends. I think if you lie to people and try to lead them to socialism, you will not achieve socialism but something else. And usually, that 'something else' will be something quite unpleasant.

I think the Berlin Wall was a monument to the bankruptcy of the approach to revolution taken by some of our contributors here. The specific historical circumstances differed, but the essential point is that if you lie to people, if you mislead and manipulate people, then you lay the seeds of a failed society. In some ways, the old East Germany was superior to the West, in its social attitudes, its equity of incomes and living standards, its innovative labour practices (including workers self-management), and its treatment of women, and so on. But what they created was an impoverished, immiserated prison, a nightmare that people tried or wanted to escape from, a disgraceful and scandalous system that gives our side of the political fence a bad name.

We must always be watchful and wary of the Proper Tidys of this world, who will scream and wail and insult their opponents, and promise a "socialist vision", or a "democratic society". Anyone can promise these things. Capitalism is a bad system, but at least we live under a model that has rational-legal scruples and democratic forms, and which encourages a balance between citizen and state. The alternative, this "democratic society" that some "socialists" want, is a society in which an informed elite know what is best for us. I don't want that. I also know that Proper Tidy does not want it either, but Proper Tidy's real problem is a failure to confront the consequences of his own views.

Although I have a high opinion of the average person's social understanding, I am also acutely conscious that the average person is easily led. The basis of the S.P.G.B. is that before socialism can happen, people must be free of that mentality. Only then can socialism take root, and when that happens, leaders will seem as irrelevant as feudalism. The S.P.G.B. approach depends on a wholesale rejection of leadership, and wholesale rejection of the S.P.G.B. itself. The S.P.G.B. does not want power - to the contrary, its members will run a mile from any political office. The S.P.G.B. does not want to bring about socialism either. To the contrary, if the S.P.G.B. brought about socialism, then it would not really be socialism, but some corruption of it. The S.P.G.B.'s role is the dissemination of the case for socialism, using education, propaganda, campaigning, and elections. The problem for the S.P.G.B. is that while their analysis and case are entirely rational and accurate, the case for socialism is not an easy argument to make.

People are prideful. Proper Tidy is being conned, and is an accomplice in the con-artistry himself, but does not want to admit it. That is perfectly understandable, but it shows us the problem we have here, which is the problem any truthful person has when making rational case. The S.P.G.B. case is an inconvenient truth that people need to confront.

 

[Gravediggers]

Everyone agrees that love is a good thing. A political movement cottons-on to this, calls themselves the Love Party, purports to have ‘love’ principles and works to establish a ‘love’ society. The movement quickly starts to grow mainly because the Love Party leadership are adept at jumping onto and controlling every bandwagon possible.

Some people (the ‘old guys’) who have been advocating love for a long time declare that the Love Party’s policies cannot possibly lead to a love society. If anything, they are more likely to lead to tyranny. Sure, some of the Love Party leadership may actually seem genuine, but the road to love is through following real love principles.

The Love Party does everything it can to discredit the old guys. The old guys are out of touch. They are irrelevant. They are sectarian. They know nothing about building a movement and fighting for people’s struggles. Their idea of ‘love’ is utopian. Secretly the old guys’ names are written in a book and marked down for special ‘love’ treatment should the Love Party come to power.

The Love Party manage to seize power in a part of the world by piggy-backing a popular uprising. They change the name of the country to Loveland. Many people around the world are excited by this new development. Could it be that a new worldwide ‘love’ society is within sight? Many people with ‘love’ tendencies travel to Loveland to help fight for the ‘love’ future. The ‘love' movement grows and Love Parties are established across the globe.

The rulers of other countries are terrified by the events in Loveland. Everything possible must be done to prevent this ‘love’ scourge being exported. Propaganda machines go into overdrive. This ‘love’ menace will ruin us all. It is a foreign concept. All possible means are used to discredit the Love Party, the ‘love’ movement, the idea of a ‘love’ society and the very word ‘love’. The new regime in Loveland is soon to provide plenty of ammunition for this purpose.

The old guys are working overtime trying to convince people that Loveland is not real love. It is fundamentally the same as the old system, but with a new totalitarian political elite. A love society can only be established by the people themselves by following love principles. It cannot be established by a vanguard party. People are beginning to stop listening to the old guys.

The Loveland leaders are not stupid. They are astute political operators. Their propaganda skills are second to none. Across the world the Love Party is busy claiming that a new ‘love’ society has been established in Loveland. This is real ‘love’.

Some who were swept up in the ‘love’ revolution begin to drift back home. They have stories of tyranny, deceit and oppression. The old world powers seize on this for their propaganda efforts. So this is ‘love’. ‘Love’ means loss of freedom. ‘Love’ means dictatorship. ‘Love’ means slavery.

In Loveland the Love Party tightens it grip on society. It controls production, distribution, exchange, education, the media, the armed forces, everything. A new regimentation of the workforce is introduced in the name of building a brave new ‘love’ world. Now is the time for the old guys to receive the special 'love' treatment. The lucky ones escape into exile. Dissidents soon learn to shut up if they prefer not to ‘disappear’.

Through their propaganda, cynical opportunism, political and economic manoeuvring and military conquests the leadership of Loveland create a Love Empire. The world is split into two camps. Both armed with weaponry more powerful than anything imagined before. There is a stand-off.

But still the propaganda war goes on. The world’s media, education and political industries are working full-out to convince us. One side says love is good. The other says that love is bad. There’s never a doubt about it though. Loveland has a ‘love’ society.

The old guys still remain. They spend nearly all their time trying to explain what real love is. Real love is not in Loveland. No one can hear them above the clamour of lies and accusations, but the old guys don’t give up.

 

[TomR77]

Here's a socialist parable to illustrate my point. Tolstoy is responsible.

“I see mankind as a herd of cattle inside a fenced enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures and plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite grass enough for the cattle. Consequently, the cattle are tramping underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.*

“I saw the owner of the herd come to them, and when he saw their pitiful condition he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.*

“So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle. And that they called Charity.*

“Then, because the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.*

“Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up beautiful well-drained and well-ventilated cowsheds for the cattle.*

“Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave catch other might not be so serious. Then he reserved a part of the enclosure for the old bulls and the old cows over 70 years of age.*

“In fact, he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the one obvious thing, break down the fence, and let the cattle out, he answered: "If I let the cattle out, I should no longer be able to milk them."*

The parable illustrates the silliness of reformism and related approaches.

Proper Tidy wants softer sticks to prod the workers. He wants to be nice to the workers, and he also thinks that somehow this will also lead to socialism. My point is: why not just tell the workers how they might be freed from their slavery? It may not be an easy, or attractive, argument to make at first, but that doesn't make it wrong. This is a matter of truth, not expediency. Initially, there will be huge difficulties that will seem insurmountable, but over time, as awareness spreads, it will become progressively easier to make the case....and the capitalists will start to worry.

My point to Proper Tidy is this. If you want an ice cream, you buy an ice cream. If we want socialism, then would it not be easier to achieve socialism if people made the case for socialism, instead of making the case for less unemployment or higher wages, which are in fact cases for capitalism? Think about it. Like Tolstoy's parable, it's pretty simple and obvious really – in other words, precisely the sort of point that clever people overlook.

The reason the S.P.G.B. have not been successful to date may just be down to the fact that people like you have not recognised this simple and obvious point, and are not spending your 'SPEW time' helping spread awareness of the socialist case instead. There is no shame in that, but I ask you to consider now whether it is better to prod the workers with softer sticks, or abolish the whole bloody system.

 

[Gravediggers]

Some queries and doubts...

Quote:
By taking part in the democratic process we are acknowledging the possibility of a recalcitrant minority attempting to overthrow the democratic and legitimate expression of the greater majority.

What do you mean by this?

The is the possibility of a minority attempting by violent means to crush the socialist revolution. If you go to the link it will clarify this. With the working class majority the biggest army in the world and such minority IMO wont stand a cat's chance of succeeding in turning the clock back.

Quote:
In this respect, we advocate using the state machinery has a tool in the process of self-emancipation. Once this political role is completed we can immediately abolish the state and replace it with an administration of things, has was suggested by Marx and Engles. And bring about a classless, moneyless society based on free access with no borders, production for use not profit, and common ownership not private or state ownership. In effect a truly global community.

So, essentially this an electoral platform that when voted for will be enacted? By whom? How? What ideas do you have for the actual mechanics of the process?

The actual mechanics of the process, as you put it are based on an understanding of what a revolutionary process actually consists of in respect of a complete transformation of the 'social relationships'. The social relationships of all modes of production cover the political, economic, social and cultural fields. With capitalism dominant in all these fields they will have to be replaced to complete the transformation to the new set of social relationships.

Obviously, the political structure and the political process is going to be inadequate for the decision making which have to be made in socialism. There will be delegates through out the political structure answerable to recall. IMO the democratic structure will be extended but not conform to a rigid process, it will be adaptable and flexible to the changing circumstances of the time and locality.

Economically, in a society of common ownership and free access to the means of production and distribution, there will be no need for a means of exchange, markets, buying and selling, money, rent, insurance, etc,. The economy will be geared to meeting human need not profit.

This will in it self entail a major turn around in what is produced and what is not produced. For instance in a world without borders what is the point of retaining the armed forces in their present role when the conflict of interest between nation states no longer exists? Socialist society might retain the machinery of the armed forces to use as part of disaster emergency team? Who knows?

The social transformation could well consist of each separate community deciding for themselves what is needed in that particular locality and doing it for themselves. I'm speculating here because each community are going to tackle their issues and problems differently depending on the various factors of a resource based economy.

In regards to culture socialists do not envisage a bland uniform culture taking root. For the opportunity to express your individuality in thousands of different settings and with employment no longer a burden there will be far more time for self=expression.

To be continued

 

[ddraig]

er mwyn duw!
ffs

 

[Proper Tidy]

Chinese water torture, innit.

SPGB against the world

 

[existentialist]

er mwyn duw!

*learns more Welsh* Does that make me a nationalist, too...?