George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[Gravediggers]

Chinese water torture, innit.

SPGB against the world

No reply of any consequence so I take it you are still wiggling in frustration that any response will illustrate how shallow your ideas and political consciousness really is.

Pity you cant start thinking for yourself for a change. Better that than resorting to flippant remarks.

 

[existentialist]

No reply of any consequence so I take it you are still wiggling in frustration that any response will illustrate how shallow your ideas and political consciousness really is.

Pity you cant start thinking for yourself for a change. Better that than resorting to flippant remarks.

Me, I'm just breathtaken by the way you've hijacked this thread and now decry any attempt to actually move it back any nearer to the thread topic as some kind of attempt to avoid the issue .

 

[Gravediggers]

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

Only if you also learn the political equivalent of double dutch. Try joining SPEW they have some brilliant translators in that field. Or for that matter any party who consider themselves part of the left wing.

 

[two sheds]

Only if you also learn the political equivalent of double dutch. Try joining SPEW they have some brilliant translators in that field. Or for that matter any party who consider themselves part of the left wing.

What was the difference between being part of the political system and part of the political process again? One is evil and left wing so shouldn't be tolerated and the other is brilliant and socialist so we should all follow but i'm not sure which was which.

 

[Gravediggers]

Me, I'm just breathtaken by the way you've hijacked this thread and now decry any attempt to actually move it back any nearer to the thread topic as some kind of attempt to avoid the issue .

If you recall once I declared my political credentials I was singled out for all kinds derision. I had no alternative but to defend my position. Has for hijacking this thread from the nationalists that is a bit tame don't you think when they are clearly part of the political process and open to criticism regarding their ideology.

May I remind you that this thread is a public forum and as such any person of any political persuasion, or none, are welcome to add to the discussion regardless of how the thread started off. The Welsh Nationalists, like myself have no copyright to this thread. If they have a case to answer lets hear it!

 

[existentialist]

If you recall once I declared my political credentials I was singled out for all kinds derision. I had no alternative but to defend my position. Has for hijacking this thread from the nationalists that is a bit tame don't you think when they are clearly part of the political process and open to criticism regarding their ideology.

May I remind you that this thread is a public forum and as such any person of any political persuasion, or none, are welcome to add to the discussion regardless of how the thread started off. The Welsh Nationalists, like myself have no copyright to this thread. If they have a case to answer lets hear it!

I thought you'd probably try and justify yourself.

It rather confirms my suspicions about your motives for being here, and the "spontaneous" arrival of what's probably quite a lot of the SPGB rank and file...

 

[Gravediggers]

What was the difference between being part of the political system and part of the political process again? One is evil and left wing so shouldn't be tolerated and the other is brilliant and socialist so we should all follow but i'm not sure which was which.

The political system is the means by which the capitalists discuss how to make a profit. What Marx called the 'Political Economy'. To put it more plainly, if a political party proposes remedies to the wages system like a minimum wage of £8.00 they are in fact discussing the lowest level of subsistence in order to gain the maximum in profit. By definition this makes that political party part and parcel of the political system.

Whereas the the political process is the means by which all political parties state their case to the electorate. It follows if the electorate can be persuaded to support one form of ownership they can also be persuaded to support another form of ownership. That is why we persist in declaring ourselves for common ownership of the means of production and distribution under the democratic control of the community as a whole.

 

[Gravediggers]

I thought you'd probably try and justify yourself.

It rather confirms my suspicions about your motives for being here, and the "spontaneous" arrival of what's probably quite a lot of the SPGB rank and file...

I don't have to justify myself for being here and neither have you. I've explained previously, that once I declared my political credentials the thread turned into a political bun fight with me has the target. Have you tried to reply to 50+ posts in a day, if so did you give up the fight or call on some friends to help out? Not having any intention of giving in to bullies I done what was necessary to even things out. Especially, when it became clear that there were several members of SPEW enjoying their wrecking tactics.

 

[existentialist]

I don't have to justify myself for being here

No, you don't.

But you did

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Quite true the SPGB agree with you entirely. For we recognise that is the historical role of the working class. Who will be politically conscious of their aim and how to get it.

Who are organised under the banner of the SPGB - otherwise, what is the point of the SPGB as a political party?

I'm paradoxically still a supporter... In the sense that I think you have it wrong politically but I support the SPGB for the purposes it claims for itself (the same ones it uses to counter political arguments against it and for which I no more than support them). [If that makes sense]

 

[Gravediggers]

Who are organised under the banner of the SPGB - otherwise, what is the point of the SPGB as a political party?

I'm paradoxically still a supporter... In the sense that I think you have it wrong politically but I support the SPGB for the purposes it claims for itself (the same ones it uses to counter political arguments against them and for which I no more than support them). [If that makes sense]

It makes perfect sense. The SPGB have many supporters who support our aim of common ownership but think we have it wrong politically. Unfortunately, very few of them spell out where they think we have got it wrong politically.

 

[Gravediggers]

No, you don't.

But you did

If you say so. I can sleep with that.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It makes perfect sense. The SPGB have many supporters who support our aim of common ownership but think we have it wrong politically. Unfortunately, very few of them spell out where they think we have got it wrong politically.

But they do - as I have done, and will continue in doing.

If the Socialist Party isn't the creation of the political consciousness of the working class why should it abnegate its essential purpose of gaining support of the working class and capturing power as a result? The party is its set of principles, basically. The SPGB could exist as a propaganda organisation instead of a political party. Otherwise, its purpose as such, is to electorally capture power and establish socialism/communism.

 

[Gravediggers]

But they do - as I have done, and will continue in doing.

If the Socialist Party isn't the creation of the political consciousness of the working class why should it abnegate its essential purpose of gaining support of the working class and capturing power as a result? The party is its set of principles, basically. The SPGB could exist as a propaganda organisation instead of a political party. Otherwise, its purpose as such, is to electorally capture power and establish socialism/communism.

I think a little correction is in order in that I did say "very few" I didn't say "all". I will concede you may well be one of the very few supporters who have told the SPGB where they think we are going wrong. I assume this has been through the letters pages of the Socialist Standard available here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/index.html .

If not you make quite a good case above which will suffice for discussion. We argue that we are the creation of the political consciousness of the working class and as such have no reason to abnegate, or relinquish, the essential purpose of gaining working class support and capturing political power as a result.

Yes we could exist purely as propaganda organisation, or even as an educational organisation. This issue is still being discussed amongst the members. But so far all it as illustrated is whether or not this would serve any useful purpose is debatable and a moot point.

In fact the founders of the SPGB in 1904 took in my estimation the wisest course and choose to combine all three e.g. the political with the propaganda, and the propaganda with the educational. This is based on the sound conclusion that the class struggle encompasses all three and is essential to our participation in the political process for self-emancipation and the establishment of socialism/ communism.

 

[dannysp]

I thought you'd probably try and justify yourself.

It rather confirms my suspicions about your motives for being here, and the "spontaneous" arrival of what's probably quite a lot of the SPGB rank and file...

The reason for GD being here is to put forward the case for Socialism, perfectly legitimate.
The "spontaneous arrival" of workers who agree with GD is a problem, how so?
Could you explain.

 

[TomR77]

All quiet on the Western front, I see....

Adam Buick in the SPGB forums is implying we should be non-confrontational in these discussions. With all respect, I think that is utter bollocks. The S.P.G.B. has a very good case, and when it is put firmly and clearly, the lefties and capitalism's apologists are shown up for the frauds they are, as is being demonstrated on this thread. It's time the S.P.G.B. stops being 'nice' and starts getting militant. Get out there and take the fight to your opponents.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I think a little correction is in order in that I did say "very few" I didn't say "all". I will concede you may well be one of the very few supporters who have told the SPGB where they think we are going wrong. I assume this has been through the letters pages of the Socialist Standard available here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/index.html .

If not you make quite a good case above which will suffice for discussion. We argue that we are the creation of the political consciousness of the working class and as such have no reason to abnegate, or relinquish, the essential purpose of gaining working class support and capturing political power as a result.

Yes we could exist purely as propaganda organisation, or even as an educational organisation. This issue is still being discussed amongst the members. But so far all it as illustrated is whether or not this would serve any useful purpose is debatable and a moot point.

In fact the founders of the SPGB in 1904 took in my estimation the wisest course and choose to combine all three e.g. the political with the propaganda, and the propaganda with the educational. This is based on the sound conclusion that the class struggle encompasses all three and is essential to our participation in the political process for self-emancipation and the establishment of socialism/ communism.

No, I don't think those founding men and women constituted the party as a compromise between thought and practise, but as a real marxist praxis for an immanent revolution. The idea that you call yourself socialist and then reflexively enact the historic mission thereof is nothing but idealist, if not religious. Names aren't ideals enacting reality - they specify actualizations, fleeting away or being achieved. Those were revolutionary times the likes of William Morris lived in. That socialism was the direct consequence of class-struggle even a conservative in that time might be able to admit in some fashion. Now the story has story has changed.

But the reason the SPGB still thought itself to be even more credible after those times, however, is that it was always able to deflect criticism of the failure of the working class to overthrow capitalism as a result of wrong ideas even though it was really and truly a purely marxist party.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

Louis MacNeice

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

I did not think the "dreadful poetry" was worthy of a reply. Especially after having received a round of applause from the audience at Tolpuddle, many of whom commented after they thought it was worthy of publication and also requested more of the same. I like to think it may have been my passion of delivery which switched on their political consciousness.

Who knows I may fancy another turn at this years commemoration of the Tolpuddle Martryr's. Why don't you come along I'm sure your impression of Julie Birchalls' worn out adieu will go down a treat!

 

[TomR77]

The reason for GD being here is to put forward the case for Socialism, perfectly legitimate.
The "spontaneous arrival" of workers who agree with GD is a problem, how so?
Could you explain.

I wouldn't waste your time, Danny. The idea of free and open debate is a novel concept to certain people on here. Just be sure to agree with everything they say, or you may be denounced by the Politburo as an "unscientific utopian pseudo-anarcho-spontaneous Impossibilist", or something, and face a show trial.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It's time the S.P.G.B. stops being 'nice' and starts getting militant.

Bravo. Take your own advice Tom, and apply it to your organisation.

Btw, I think it is all quiet because you've driven everybody away with repetition, a failure to address the criticisms, a holier than thou attitude, and a quite obvious persecution complex.

Ibn Khaldoun makes some excellent points, which are the same points the rest of us have been making. If you don't agree, fine, but at least address them and take on board that people who feel differently are not 'apologists for capitalism'. Your friend Adam is correct, by the way.

 

[Gravediggers]

No, I don't think those founding men and women constituted the party as a compromise between thought and practise, but as a real marxist praxis for an immanent revolution. The idea that you call yourself socialist and then reflexively enact the historic mission thereof is nothing but idealist, if not religious. Names aren't ideals enacting reality - they specify actualizations, fleeting away or being achieved. Those were revolutionary times the likes of William Morris lived in. That socialism was the direct consequence of class-struggle even a conservative in that time might be able to admit in some fashion. Now the story has story has changed.

But the reason the SPGB still thought itself to be even more credible after those times, however, is that it was always able to deflect criticism of the failure of the working class to overthrow capitalism as a result of wrong ideas even though it was really and truly a purely marxist party.

How has the story changed? Surely you are not saying that the class struggle no longer exists? We don't consider ourselves to be a "purely marxist party". Yes we agree with old Charlie on a lot of things but we also disagree with him on quite a few things. Not to do so would be to accept Marxian theory as a dogma.

We apply Marxian theory, as opposed to Marxist theory, to the present day. And to help us to pursue this activity we use his analysis of the political economy and the theory of historical materialism. Like Marx and Engles pointed out Marxian theory itself is subject to the social dynamics of class struggle and the circumstances that is thrown up by engagement in the day-to-day struggle. History has moved on since Charlie popped the bucket and the SPGB is moving with it.

Please don't go into the intractable limitations of dialectics here which I find is an exercise in round robin.

 

[Gravediggers]

All quiet on the Western front, I see....

Adam Buick in the SPGB forums is implying we should be non-confrontational in these discussions. With all respect, I think that is utter bollocks. The S.P.G.B. has a very good case, and when it is put firmly and clearly, the lefties and capitalism's apologists are shown up for the frauds they are, as is being demonstrated on this thread. It's time the S.P.G.B. stops being 'nice' and starts getting militant. Get out there and take the fight to your opponents.

Which is exactly what we are doing here, don't you think? And if we ever happen to meet up you will soon find out I'm far from being nice, as you put it. And that goes for the majority of the party. This thread to be honest bears nothing in comparison to the rough and tumble I've experienced from members of the SPGB.

 

[TomR77]

Bravo. Take your own advice Tom, and apply it to your organisation.

Btw, I think it is all quiet because you've driven everybody away with repetition, a failure to address the criticisms, a holier than thou attitude, and a quite obvious persecution complex.

Ibn Khaldoun makes some excellent points, which are the same points the rest of us have been making. If you don't agree, fine, but at least address them and take on board that people who feel differently are not 'apologists for capitalism'. Your friend Adam is correct, by the way.

It's not my organisation, and I do not know anyone in the S.P.G.B., including this 'Adam'.

And Adam is wrong. I actually think you are right. The S.P.G.B. does need to get angry, and could use some of your style. I made that comment to try and stir things up.

You accuse me of:-

i). repetition - true, in the sense that I am repeating points which you fail to address;
ii). a holier than thou attitude - not true - I have admitted that the S.P.G.B. has flaws and that I welcome genuine criticism, rather than your crude insults and childish flippancy;
iii). a quite obvious persecution complex - it takes one to know one. Was I being insulted or not? Can you honestly say that the majority of the remarks directed at myself and GD were pertinent?

It's glass houses and stones, I'm afraid. I really think neither of us should engage in such remarks. You entered the field of battle. I've taken you on. You thought it would be easy, and you were enjoying yourself when you had the bullies on-side.

 

[TomR77]

Which is exactly what we are doing here, don't you think? And if we ever happen to meet up you will soon find out I'm far from being nice, as you put it. And that goes for the majority of the party. This thread to be honest bears nothing in comparison to the rough and tumble I've experienced from members of the SPGB.

Good to hear it. Maybe I was wrong about you then. If so, I apologise. I made the comment in the hope of a response.

I do think Proper Tidy has a point, though. You do come across as an elite book club.

 

[TomR77]

Ibn Khaldoun makes some excellent points, which are the same points the rest of us have been making. If you don't agree, fine, but at least address them and take on board that people who feel differently are not 'apologists for capitalism'. Your friend Adam is correct, by the way.

Where have I suggested you are an apologist for capitalism? I haven't suggested or stated that anywhere.

What I am suggesting is that you are a mug who is campaigning for reforms or improvements of the capitalist system in the belief this will raise working class consciousness and lead to socialism.

What in fact will happen is what has happened every time this has been tried. You will be co-opted into the capitalist system. If I were a capitalist, my response to your programme of reforms would be to welcome them. That is the best way to neutralise you. It's the method that the ruling classes have used for three centuries, and it works.

"Yes, come in Mr. Proper Tidy. Take a seat in the board room. What was that, you say? Workers self-management? Yes, I'm sure we can give you that. Trade union recognition? No problem. And how about a pay rise?"

You mugs!

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

How has the story changed? Surely you are not saying that the class struggle no longer exists?

No, but, oppositely, that the class struggle is reaching highest realisation, for it is not the integral dynamic of the progression of bourgeois politics as it was in 1904, but has followed the extrapolation of capitalist exchange equivalents in shaping things. To make no mistake, the case for ideology is made in the indeterminacy of things.

We don't consider ourselves to be a "purely marxist party". Yes we agree with old Charlie on a lot of things but we also disagree with him on quite a few things. Not to do so would be to accept Marxian theory as a dogma.

We apply Marxian theory, as opposed to Marxist theory, to the present day. And to help us to pursue this activity we use his analysis of the political economy and the theory of historical materialism. Like Marx and Engles pointed out Marxian theory itself is subject to the social dynamics of class struggle and the circumstances that is thrown up by engagement in the day-to-day struggle. History has moved on since Charlie popped the bucket and the SPGB is moving with it.

Please don't go into the intractable limitations of dialectics here which I find is an exercise in round robin.

The SPGB's founding principles are all based on popular revolutionary marxist ideas at that time; some have gained significance and others are more anachronistic.

'Marxian theory' is a methodical practise, an indistortable lens of historical development.

 

[TomR77]

Ibn Khaldoun makes some excellent points, which are the same points the rest of us have been making. If you don't agree, fine, but at least address them and take on board that people who feel differently are not 'apologists for capitalism'. Your friend Adam is correct, by the way.

They are not the same points the rest of you have been making. They are better. But they are still wide of the mark, and GD has already addressed them.

Don't misunderstand me - there are criticisms to be made of the S.P.G.B. case, and I will gladly discuss them. I have no vested interest in this squabbling, other than being a simple worker. My point here is that I have examined the matter, and I have decided the S.P.G.B. case is the best case.

I actually think SPEW's arguments are essentially fraudulent and manipulative. I don't see the point of trying to be nice, polite or coy about it. And judging by your own posts, nor do you.

It's clear, though, you expect Buick-like "non-confrontational" politeness from the S.P.G.B. And when they don't comply and act like perfect, lilly-white gentleman, you whine, bitch and complain like a teenage girl.

Are the S.P.G.B. not entitled to put their case just as forcefully as you are? Or does militancy only apply when you are a violent, hate-infested Trotskyist who tells lies to workers?

Do tell us.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Tom

Are you drunk?

 

[Gravediggers]

Good to hear it. Maybe I was wrong about you then. If so, I apologise. I made the comment in the hope of a response.

I do think Proper Tidy has a point, though. You do come across as an elite book club.

No need to apologise for you have made a fair comment and I could not agree with you more that on occasions we do come across as an elite book club. Indeed, I would go as far to say that the SPGB desperately needs to brighten up its image. We are certainly not good or nice when it comes to internal discussion. So we certainly don't need to be nice when it comes to external discussion with the opposition.

But having said that all of us need to remember there is a very thin line between expressing anger and exhibiting rage. For example, the left are well known for showing their rage when confronting the BNP or similar organisations and would - if in power - deny them access to the political process. No messing. Whereas, on the other hand if we were in a debate with the BNP we would most certainly condemn them with anger, besides destroying their anti-social arguments.

I know which one I prefer, without a doubt.

 

[TomR77]

If people are going to become aware of the S.P.G.B. case, then you've got to get mad in a way, you've got to get out there and make the case. You've got some young members and some older, wiser ones too – engage the people you have, use them. You've got a great case, but it's going to upset a lot of people – nothing you can do about that. If you're right, you're right, and it just so happens that the S.P.G.B. is right.