George Monbiot on "Wales' unreported revolution"

[TomR77]

Tom

Are you drunk?

No.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

Which are exactly the same accusations that I put to the collective left wing on this thread many posts ago. And I still stand by them. Am I angry you betcha!

On reflection it was from that particular post on that this thread developed into a typical spectacle of left wing fury when being faced with the political truth that they are on a loser. I shall have to do a search and bump it back up just to remind them that my feelings haven't changed one iota.

 

[TomR77]

If I may say so, I also find it rather odd to be accused of driving people away.

This is an internet forum. Anyone who doesn't like my posts, is free to ignore them.

How precious our lefty opponents are, and so very middle-class.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

'precious and middle-class' or not i still made a non-trivial argument last post.

 

[TomR77]

'precious and middle-class' or not i still made a non-trivial argument last post.

I was not directing the comment at you. I think your critique is valid.

 

[TomR77]

Having said that, I also think you are wrong and GD's comments have already addressed your remarks, to which your last post adds nothing,

 

[TomR77]

I am not a great determinist and do not consider the class struggle to be preordained in some way.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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!

Tough crowd; you must be very proud. Please keep the Julie Birchill digs coming; they are absolutely spot on.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The "spontaneous arrival" of workers who agree with GD...

Even the parentheses don't save this from being risible.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

As a lefty or apologist for capitalism.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

I could not agree with you more that on occasions we do come across as an elite book club.

Splendid stuff last night, i have to say.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Which are exactly the same accusations that I put to the collective left wing on this thread many posts ago. And I still stand by them. Am I angry you betcha!

On reflection it was from that particular post on that this thread developed into a typical spectacle of left wing fury when being faced with the political truth that they are on a loser. I shall have to do a search and bump it back up just to remind them that my feelings haven't changed one iota.

Keep tilting Don.

Louis MacNeice

 

[existentialist]

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.

Nothing to explain. A thread that started out being about the Welsh political situation has turned into a lumbering dinosauresque plenary convention where an assortment of 1970s political caricatures argue points of dogma and ideology with no basis in reality, while the rather more cogent issues around Wales, its identity, and the particular political issues that arise here are dumped on the floor.

In other words, a microcosm of British politics as it relates to Wales: apparently, rehearsing the very specific mouthings of socialist party dogma and ensuring that there aren't any heretics or socialist apostates around to spoil the unity is far more important than a discussion on specifically Welsh politics.

Which is fine - I'm not even complaining. Just noticing.

ETA: actually, I suppose I am complaining. At the beginning of this thread, I was learning a lot of interesting things about Welsh politics. Then it turned into one of the most stultifyingly tedious examples of people managing to navelgaze from the inside that I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

 

[existentialist]

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.

I suspect that this is because we're not quite as inured to boredom as I imagine - from reading what's written here - the diehard stalwarts of the SPGB are.

 

[Gravediggers]

Some queries and doubts...

Would you need an absolute majority of voters? of the electorate? of the population? Just in Britain? What about countries with no democratic elections? How will they get socialism?

The use of the term "absolute majority" or even "overwhelming majority" is debatable and much too futuristic and undemocratic for my understanding of a socialist revolution in process. The workers at the time will have to decide what constitutes a majority. Some of the factors they will have to take into consideration is the amount of activity taking place outside of the political process in respect of organising and planning for the transformation to common ownership.

Has I've pointed out in previous posts although the issues of the ballot are important there is also the issue of commitment by the majority after the vote is counted. If there are insufficient workers willing to make socialism actually work through meeting human needs the ballot counts for nothing. Its doing it what counts.

I suspect they will also consider the number of upheavals taking place in society with the number of reforms on offer from the ruling class, plus the number of demonstrations with a clear socialist approach in support of what is taking place.

Ideas do not stand alone in isolation of the wider global community. And we would expect that what is happening in Britain would be reflected to a smaller or larger degree in the rest of the industrial nations. Regarding those countries who have no democratic political process obviously socialists would be helping the workers in those countries all they can in order for them to rectify the situation.

 

[Gravediggers]

'precious and middle-class' or not i still made a non-trivial argument last post.

And I'm addressing it at this moment. Be back with you shortly.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

You will have to excuse me but I have great difficulty trying to understand what actually you are saying here. Could you put it in terms that are easier to grasp rather than an exercise in political vocabulary?

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.

There have been many discussions over the years on the relativity of our principles to the present class struggle and we have concluded that even if we made an exercise of changing the wording to make it more presentable to a modern day audience the essential meaning would remain the same. I totally agree that 'Marxian theory' is a methodical practice and unlike Marxist theory is not subject to a distorted view of historical development.

 

[butchersapron]

I.e many years ago you decided not to be relevant to the modern world.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I totally agree that 'Marxian theory' is a methodical practice and unlike Marxist theory is not subject to a distorted view of historical development.

That's handy then; not very Marxian or Marxist, but politically handy none the less.

Louis MacNeice

 

[dannysp]

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.

I read somewhere that It is almost impossible to get people to understand something when their entire way of life and sense of self demands they don't understand.

 

[butchersapron]

You broke the circle though danny -you're living proof that it's not true.

 

[dannysp]

ETA: actually, I suppose I am complaining. At the beginning of this thread, I was learning a lot of interesting things about Welsh politics. Then it turned into one of the most stultifyingly tedious examples of people managing to navelgaze from the inside that I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.[/QUOTE]

Then you have my permission to leave.

 

[Gravediggers]

Nothing to explain. A thread that started out being about the Welsh political situation has turned into a lumbering dinosauresque plenary convention where an assortment of 1970s political caricatures argue points of dogma and ideology with no basis in reality, while the rather more cogent issues around Wales, its identity, and the particular political issues that arise here are dumped on the floor.

In other words, a microcosm of British politics as it relates to Wales: apparently, rehearsing the very specific mouthings of socialist party dogma and ensuring that there aren't any heretics or socialist apostates around to spoil the unity is far more important than a discussion on specifically Welsh politics.

Which is fine - I'm not even complaining. Just noticing.

ETA: actually, I suppose I am complaining. At the beginning of this thread, I was learning a lot of interesting things about Welsh politics. Then it turned into one of the most stultifyingly tedious examples of people managing to navelgaze from the inside that I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Have you ever thought of directing your complaints at lewislewis who started this thread under the title of, 'Wales unreported revolution' and George Monbiot who called it the 'Quite revolution' where the inclusion of a question mark in both instances is noticeable for its absence? This is inexcusable and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. It is they who decided to describe reforms and reformism as a masquerade for "revolution".

And has the discussion on this thread illustrates they - and others - have no idea what a social revolution means.

 

[dannysp]

I've been doing a bit of what if, you know the stuff, what if I a had gone out with that girl all those years ago when I had the chance, or had taken that job etc.
So what if the founding members of The SPGB had said "fuck it" and joined the Labour party and perhaps later on joined the CP whatever and threw their weight behind the fight for reforms (improvements)? What would have been the outcome d'you reckon?
On the other hand, if all those on the left, like those mugs in The SPGB, had taken the advice given by the fuckwit Marx, when he made a right tit of himself in 1865 when recommending that they the workers addressed the cause of their situation and abolish the wages system?
Any ideas?

 

[existentialist]

Have you ever thought of directing your complaints at lewislewis who started this thread under the title of, 'Wales unreported revolution' and George Monbiot who called it the 'Quite revolution' where the inclusion of a question mark in both instances is noticeable for its absence? This is inexcusable and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. It is they who decided to describe reforms and reformism as a masquerade for "revolution".

And has the discussion on this thread illustrates they - and others - have no idea what a social revolution means.

Ah, and that makes it OK, does it?

You really do believe you're superior to the rest of the world, don't you?

 

[butchersapron]

I've been doing a bit of what if, you know the stuff, what if I a had gone out with that girl all those years ago when I had the chance, or had taken that job etc.
So what if the founding members of The SPGB had said "fuck it" and joined the Labour party and perhaps later on joined the CP whatever and threw their weight behind the fight for reforms (improvements)? What would have been the outcome d'you reckon?
?

Indeed so what? What would change?

 

[Proper Tidy]

You're still not grasping the criticism that has been directed at SPGB. Any of you.

Nobody is or has advocated the abandonment of socialism; nobody is advocating the preservation of the wages system, or capitalism.

What most people are advocating is a Marxian approach; that to create socialism you must first create the conditions for socialism; and, in order to do this, it is necessary to participate in struggle for everyday improvements as an organised socialist group. By struggling for improvements - or reforms, if you insist - you are demonstrating to working class people, who may not yet possess a socialist consciousness, the benefits of socialism; that by doing so, workers brought into struggle by the class war being waged by the wages system, or capitalism, will themselves reach the conclusion that the abolition of the wages system, or capitalism, is necessary.

Others are also making the point that the SPGB's position, which I will come to, has made the SPGB less relevant to working people than the Marxian approach, which in itself is increasingly irrelevant, and that this should be a cause of concern to those involved in the SPGB and the WSM.

Now, I do understand the position of SPGB; that by adopting a Marxian approach of fighting for everyday improvements alongside the advocation of socialism, you are unwittingly capitulating to reformism - that every improvement achieved, regardless of whether it was achieved by militancy from below or not, regardless of whether a number of those involved in achieving the improvement advocate the abolition of capitalism, in material effect strengthens capitalism's position rather than weakens it as it demonstrates that capitalism can be reformed.

I suspect neither party will come around to the view of the other. Fair enough. However, using Marx to make your case is not going to benefit you, as Marx categorically did not advocate the position you adopt. He advocated the struggle for the abolition of the wages system (socialism) alongside the struggle for improvements to the wages system (reformism) that are in the benefit of the working class. Ergo, Marxian theory makes the case of struggle for both; and that struggle for the latter will benefit struggle for the former. Reformists believe that capitalism can be reformed, which is not the position adopted by what you may regard as the Marxist left or whatever definition you use. Neither is the whole martyr act likely to win you many friends.

I would also suggest - and I'm as guilty as you on this front - that it is not appreciated that this thread is being used for what can, to those not as interested in the theories of socialism and the vagaries of the far left (yes I know you reject this term), seem to be a dry subject. So can I suggest that if you really do wish to pursue this debate that you start a new thread?

Thanks

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Have you ever thought of directing your complaints at lewislewis who started this thread under the title of, 'Wales unreported revolution' and George Monbiot who called it the 'Quite revolution' where the inclusion of a question mark in both instances is noticeable for its absence? This is inexcusable and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. It is they who decided to describe reforms and reformism as a masquerade for "revolution".

And has the discussion on this thread illustrates they - and others - have no idea what a social revolution means.

It's good job we've got you then isn't it; to lead us out of the darkness.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Frankly, the SPGB have got off lightly here.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I've been doing a bit of what if, you know the stuff, what if I a had gone out with that girl all those years ago when I had the chance, or had taken that job etc.
So what if the founding members of The SPGB had said "fuck it" and joined the Labour party and perhaps later on joined the CP whatever and threw their weight behind the fight for reforms (improvements)? What would have been the outcome d'you reckon?
On the other hand, if all those on the left, like those mugs in The SPGB, had taken the advice given by the fuckwit Marx, when he made a right tit of himself in 1865 when recommending that they the workers addressed the cause of their situation and abolish the wages system?
Any ideas?

It's not Marx who is the 'fuckwit', just as it isn't Marx who has 'made a right tit of himself'. What if you realised who has?

Louis MacNeice