SPGB

[Louis MacNeice]

So are you still in the IWCA?

I still give the IWCA a regular monthly contribution; beyond that I haven't done anything for them for a good couple of years now. This is down to opportunity and my congenital laziness. Why?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'd leave it up to the active members to decide if they counted me as a supporter or a member; although I suspect they have better things to do.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

yes I've had A answer, and that was unusually illuminating of you. However;

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?


It is truly fascinating why you were so scared to discuss your 'politics'/"individual opinion".

Why did you ask for the answer again when I had already given it some pages previously? Why do you take my refusal to discuss politics with you on your own terms as a sign of fear? As with GD, danny et al. I'm mostly laughing and pointing.

However, you're right I do fear; I'm scared that you're drifting off into one of your incoherent flights of fancy.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

Fuck Afed

Why? What have they done wrong?

 

[scrappy1]

Which organisations would those be? Surely your hostility cause suggests - in fact explicitly states - that you and you alone have the answers?

But you imply we don't, so illuminate us. I want you to show me that I don't have "the answers".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why did you ask for the answer again when I had already given it some pages previously?
Louis MacNeice

Because I am interested in understanding your position.
This>

And just to keep you happy; why do some working class people vote Tory? Because in my estimation they have, for a whole variety of reasons, not recognised their best long term class interests.
Louis MacNeice

doesn't answer this question>
Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?

We both know Louis Mac individual opinion is true. So why will you not just state it, and move the conversation on

Why do you take my refusal to discuss politics with you on your own terms as a sign of fear?

Well why won't you discuss your politics, in any way you wan't?

 

[scrappy1]

Of course you're a politician GD; you're 'actively involved in politics, especially party politics'. As you yourself have stated, it's why you're on these boards. It is a bonus that your post also supplies yet another example of your Humpty Dumpty take on language; `when I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Vanguard
Majority
Politician
Socialism

Louis MacNeice

Suggestion: you tell us what you mean by, for example socialism, vanguardism, revolution and capitalism, and we'll carry the debate forward from there.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis MacNeice has more of an awareness of the best long term class interests of the working class, than ie a working class Tory voter? True or false Louis?

Well why won't you discuss your politics, in any way you wan't?

1. In terms of their choice of candidate at the general election, I would say my Green vote in Brighton was more progressive than their Tory one. From this, it doesn't follow that all my opinions will be more progressive than theirs; i.e. my opinions aren't truths (like the case for socialism or the leading role of the vanguard party).

2. I am.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Suggestion: you tell us what you mean by, for example socialism, vanguardism, revolution and capitalism, and we'll carry the debate forward from there.

I'm not party building; I'm mostly ridiculing the ridiculous.

You Edwardians can carry the debate whither thou wouldst; I look forward to more comedy pratfalls.

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

2. I am.

Louis MacNeice

No, your veering off to answer a question not asked, nothing to do with your politics.

There is no need to be frightened. I wouldn't nitpick it. It would just be nice to make sense of what you say. I would simply do what I did with proper tidy.

 

[scrappy1]

I'm not party building; I'm mostly ridiculing the ridiculous.

You Edwardians can carry the debate whither thou wouldst; I look forward to more comedy pratfalls.

Louis MacNeice

Obviously another time-waster. I shall file you along with butchersapron in the closed file.

Correspondence ended.

 

[Gravediggers]

1. In terms of their choice of candidate at the general election, I would say my Green vote in Brighton was more progressive than their Tory one. From this, it doesn't follow that all my opinions will be more progressive than theirs; i.e. my opinions aren't truths (like the case for socialism or the leading role of the vanguard party).

2. I am.

Louis MacNeice

Under what terms do you mean, 'progressive' for it has so many meanings under a different context. For example even Joe Stalin was considered to be progressive for the purges and the relocation of the kulaks. I find it very confusing when you make a comparison between the Greens and the Tories when both support capitalism.

That is exactly the same as running on the treadmill, or enjoying your ride on the magic roundabout of capitalism. So you are one of those who accepted the empty promises of the apologists for capitalism - the politicians. Its no wonder I rattled your cage - gotcha!

 

[Proper Tidy]

The beauty is that Capitalism is an adaptive system that responds to societies needs. Yes there are problems with Capitalism, because their are problems with society.

Capitalism doesn't respond to societies needs - that would be socialism. Capitalism responds to capitals' needs - hence why it is called capitalism. The system only adapts to the needs and wants of those with capital.

You can't possibly say that the problems with capitalism are down to society, as if these are two separate things that can be looked at in the abstract. Society, as we know it, is a direct product of capitalism. The societies of the past, from communal to absolute monarchies to feudalism - were very different to society today, and the societies of the future will be of an entirely different composition depending on the entire economic structure. It is the relationship between labour and capital which has created nation-states and class structures, you cannot abdicate capitalism from responsibility.

If I were you I'd lay off the ideological polemics and read up on the actual nuts and bolts, the analysis, because you are expounding a theory, developed from Adam Smith to Hayek, Friedman and Rands, that you appear to know fuck all about.

Capitalism will never, ever, provide the solution to its own systemic consequences.

 

[Proper Tidy]

But you imply we don't, so illuminate us. I want you to show me that I don't have "the answers".

Perhaps you should read through the threads and draw your own conclusions, instead of jumping in late and expecting everybody else to summarise criticisms that have already been made. It is very lazy, you know.

Although a more perceptive, or indeed literate, person may have noticed that what I was implying was not that I had some wisdom I needed to impart, but that your own parties' messianic and oft-trumpeted claims to anti-vangaurdism and political pluralism was a pile of shite. The very fact that you have your hostility clause - which isn't even applied on a case by case basis, but to all organisations which lay claim to being political parties - is proof that you believe you already possess all the correct answers, and that it is just a case of propagandising and waiting until the mass of the workers catch up and attain your superiour levels of class consciousness.

You are hostile to all others because you already know the true path; you just need to convince enough others to walk that path with you.

Then you have the audacity to dismiss all Leninists of every hue as potential perpetrators of future terrible crimes for being vanguard parties, yet amongst Leninists there is at least a conscious understanding of what is meant, an underpinning theory, and the chance of honest, open debate about it - whereas you lot are either in denial or dishonest when you fail to recognise that you are also vanguardist, albeit a more basic and only half-conscious example of.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Its no wonder I rattled your cage - gotcha!

You're a ridiculous man, GD

 

[Gravediggers]

You're a ridiculous man, GD

How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens. You have both been short changed and you know it. It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.

But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books. When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'

Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.

 

[two sheds]

Right from the start in September 1904 when we published the Socialist Standard. There have been several pamphlets on ecology and the environment and many, many articles dealing with different aspects of environmental concern, wrote a few myself. The latest pamphlet deals with climate change and can be found here:


www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Have a browse for we would appreciate your opinion.

Errm i got half way through but the article seems to have been moved since yesterday.

What was actually said in 1904? The christian churches now talk about the bible approving of environmentalism because of the idea of us being 'stewards' of the world but they've actually come to it all very late because it's a bit trendy.

 

[two sheds]

How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens. You have both been short changed and you know it. It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.

But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books. When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'

Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.

What party got in where you voted GD?

 

[Proper Tidy]

How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens. You have both been short changed and you know it. It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.

But you and Louis are in good company for you are both the enemy in my books. When I was on the picket line whilst the other pickets used to chant, 'scabs, scabs, scabs' I would shout loudly, 'Whose side are you on?'

Why should the posters take any of your arguments seriously when it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that both of you are disingenuous to say the least.

I was referring more to your pulp fiction style Raymond Chandler-lite way of writing, GD.

Out of interest, when on the picket line, did you tell your fellow workers that
it was pointless and that they couldn't win?

 

[Gravediggers]

Errm i got half way through but the article seems to have been moved since yesterday.

What was actually said in 1904? The christian churches now talk about the bible approving of environmentalism because of the idea of us being 'stewards' of the world but they've actually come to it all very late because it's a bit trendy.

My fault I tried placing a 'here' link and failed, so here it is again:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/ECO.html

Like I said we would appreciate your opinion on the pamphlet. Whilst you are in the pamphlet section have a search for the, 'Production for use' or 'From Capitalism to Socialism' pamphlets for they both to my recollection mention the environment, and could be useful to you. Derek Pepper, in his book, 'Eco-Socialism' 1993 also mentions us extensively.

Not sure what was actually said in 1904 and I could well be wrong on the actual month. But whilst I'm in London this weekend I shall go through the achieves and see what I can pick out. The SPGB do not see the environment as a trendy issue and once the back issues of the Socialist Standard are fully digitalised you will see we have been at it for a very long time, even before the Greens.

 

[two sheds]

It's one thing to promise these things, but another to be able to implement them. Why do you think they've not been implemented up to now? Is it because the politicians who've been in charge of the government are dishonest or incompetent or not determined enough? Or could it be that capitalism cannot be reformed into a "fairer" system?

Why are pensions, benefits, etc under threat? Is it because the politicians are bastards who want to make things worse for people? Or is it because improvements in these would have to be paid for out of taxes on profits which, since profit-seeking and profit-making are what makes the wheels of capitalism go round, would risk provoking an economic crisis if implemented?

Why did the Labour Party which set out to gradually change capitalism gradually change into an alternative management team for Great Britain PLC? Could be because governments can't make capitalism into a fairer society even though they might want to? And that any party which takes on the responsibility of governing capitalism -- which Plaid or the Greens would have to do to implement their programme -- has no alternative but to govern on capitalism's terms and give priority to profit-making over all other considerations?

I could give the same reasons for why you'll never get the version of socialism you want. It's one thing to promise these things, but another to be able to implement them. Why do you think they've not been implemented up to now? .... etc etc.

The policies set out by Plaid would lead to a fairer society, which is what scrappy said the 'supporters of capitalism' never explained. They are explained, it's just that he's so blinkered that he can't see the explanation.

Derek Wall, who was the Green Party candidate in Windsor in the recent election (and one of their "spokespersons" before they decided to have a Leader), once wrote what would happen if a Green Party government was elected to run capitalism on a programme like yours:

:
A Green government will be controlled by the economy rather than being in control. On coming to office through coalition or more absolute success, it would be met by an instant collapse of sterling as ’hot money’ and entrepreneurial capital went elsewhere. The exchange rate would fall and industrialists would move their factories to countries with more relaxed environmental controls and workplace regulation. Sources of finance would dry up as unemployment rocketed, slashing the revenue from taxation and pushing up the social security bills. The money for ecological reconstruction—the building of railways, the closing of motorways, the construction of a proper sewage system—would run out (Getting There: Steps to a Green Society, 1990)."

Spot on.

Well we'd only go for an environmentalist government when a majority of people wanted it. So, what you are not taking into account is that the growth of a mass movement for a democratic classless society employing open, democratic and non-violent tactics will of itself both extract concessions from the ruling class you seem to want and lessen the chances of a confrontation you are afraid of. In fact the more people that come to want want a democratic classless society the weaker (not the stronger) become the ruling class and its state.

That argument's a bit of shit when you actually look at it, isn't it. I took it from your reply to me earlier in the thread as to why there wouldn't be violent reaction to a real socialist victory . So you gleefully point out why there couldn't be a successful environmental government but can't see that the same reasons would mean you couldn't have the socialist victory that you want.

 

[Gravediggers]

I was referring more to your pulp fiction style Raymond Chandler-lite way of writing, GD.

Out of interest, when on the picket line, did you tell your fellow workers that
it was pointless and that they couldn't win?

Not having read Chandler I have no idea what his style of writing was. Mine is valley's born and valley's bred where a spade is a spade.

When on the picket line I always told my fellow workers what the class struggle consisted of, and I have to say whilst the left was treated with suspicion and in many cases told to fuck off I had no problems in expressing my support. Or in explaining that capitalism is not in our interest, which unsurprisingly many of them agreed with.

 

[Gravediggers]

What party got in where you voted GD?

Labour, and I did not have the chance to vote with my time taken up with this thread and domestic issues.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Labour, and I did not have the chance to vote with my time taken up with this thread and domestic issues.

Who would you have voted for, had you been able to tear yourself away from this thread?

 

[Jean-Luc]

I still give the IWCA a regular monthly contribution; beyond that I haven't done anything for them for a good couple of years now. This is down to opportunity and my congenital laziness. Why?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'd leave it up to the active members to decide if they counted me as a supporter or a member; although I suspect they have better things to do.

I can't believe it! So the persistent critic of one political party as being vanguardist, prescriptive, etc, etc. for having a programme it puts before workers turns out to be a member/supporter of another political party!

I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.

Found this observation on another thread which may or may not be appropriate here:

You are right that the IWCA seemed to have a disproportionately high number of passive internet cheerleaders as compared to people actively involved in their projects. But to me that particular phenomenon seems to be quite easy to explain by looking at the demographic involved.
The internet supporters seem to be heavily biased towards an older crowd who have been around the left at some point in their youth, who have long dropped out of organised political activity, and who are a bit cynical.

 

[Gravediggers]

Who would you have voted for, had you been able to tear yourself away from this thread?

To be quite frank I would have wrote, "None of you fucking bastards - World Socialism" across my ballot paper. Although you may disagree, I do not agree it was wasted when my socialist principles, integrity, honesty, determination and seriousness are on the line. For I will not compromise with capitalism when given the opportunity to express my support for socialism.

I've voted Labour and Plaid in the past and got kicked in the teeth for all my efforts. And is one of the reasons why I became a socialist.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I imagine that, as a political party, IWCA is opposed to the other political parties, especially when it contests elections eg when it stood against Lindsey Germain of Respect in the 2004 elections for London mayor. I think it's opposed too to Leninism and the concept of the vanguard party. So that's something else that the IWCA and the SPGB would seem to have in common.

The difference being, I should imagine, that the decision as to whether they are hostile to another political formation or not is taken on an individual basis, rather than arrogantly stating that you already have it right, applying a blanket ban to all other parties, and ploughing that lonely furrow for a century

 

[Proper Tidy]

integrity, honesty, determination and seriousness are on the line. For I will not compromise with capitalism when given the opportunity to express my support for socialism.

Lol. Do you have a cape?

I've voted Labour and Plaid in the past and got kicked in the teeth for all my efforts. And is one of the reasons why I became a socialist.

Well of course you've voted Plaid in the past. you were a member weren't you? Out of interest, do you recognise the differences in capitalist parties? That some will kick you in the teeth harder than others, for instance?

 

[two sheds]

How is it being ridiculous for getting you to admit that you voted for Plaid and Louis to admit s/he voted for the Greens. You have both been short changed and you know it. It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy.

Haha so your inaction helped let Labour in. You have been short changed and you know it. It exemplifies you are willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by letting in the enemy.

That aside, the environmental piece was mainly a fair analysis, not a lot i'd disagree with. Not sure i'd want to live with nuclear power whoever was in charge of it though.

SPGB is still never a party i'd want to join. The only answer to my question about what happens when the capitalists fight back is a touching belief that they wouldn't have the chance. That and your contempt and hatred of all other parties, particularly the other left wing ones, is too much for me. You're too dogmatic, too sure of your own beliefs and too reliant on The Faith in a way that fundamentalist christians are. The SPGB seems to be the Jehovah's Witnesses of the left wing parties, really.

 

[scrappy1]

Although a more perceptive, or indeed literate, person may have noticed that what I was implying was not that I had some wisdom I needed to impart, but that your own parties' messianic and oft-trumpeted claims to anti-vangaurdism and political pluralism was a pile of shite. The very fact that you have your hostility clause - which isn't even applied on a case by case basis, but to all organisations which lay claim to being political parties - is proof that you believe you already possess all the correct answers, and that it is just a case of propagandising and waiting until the mass of the workers catch up and attain your superiour levels of class consciousness.

.

Can you tell us when our hostility clause has not been applied?
All other political parties support capitalism by word or deed, despite what some may say to the contrary. That's why we oppose them.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Can you tell us when our hostility clause has not been applied?

Whut?

All other political parties support capitalism by word or deed, despite what some may say to the contrary. That's why we oppose them.

You chose to oppose all other political organisations a century ago. You do not review each party. You are hostile to everybody else - just as you would be hostile to any other party daft enough to worship at the same alter of abstract utopianism as you, by the dint of them being a political party.

You are placing yourselves as the one and only socialist vanguard. You have the magic path, and now it is the waiting game until everybody else realises, eh?