SPGB

[two sheds]

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

So do you, by inaction. You let the tories in as much as people who voted for them.

I have actually been wondering whether the party was originally set up by capitalists. An image comes to mind of a group of old men sitting in their leather armchairs with their brandies and cigars:

"I know, why don't we set up a 'socialist' party that opposes all the other left wing parties?" "Haha yes and they can refuse to do anything against us because that is the only way that the 'workers' will see the real weaknesses of the capitalist system" "And they can sit round having meetings to develop a really comprehensive definition of socialism before doing anything" "No, no, they'll need to produce pamphlets and possibly a phonographic record to explain their views to the masses"

 

[Gravediggers]

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?

The only noticeable difference I find is that some advocate state capitalism and others a mixed economy with state capitalism and private capitalism. There's plenty of room for compromise amongst that lot. As for any difference in a 'hard kick in the teeth' on balance capitalism is capitalism as proven with Kronstadt, Hungary, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The only noticeable difference I find is that some advocate state capitalism and others a mixed economy with state capitalism and private capitalism. There's plenty of room for compromise amongst that lot. As for any difference in a 'hard kick in the teeth' on balance capitalism is capitalism as proven with Kronstadt, Hungary, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

So there is no difference, and has never been any difference, between a Tory or a Labour government?

No difference between Pinochet's Chile and Olof Palme's Sweden?

Fuck me, you really are trapped in a bubble of abstraction aren't you?

 

[Jean-Luc]

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,

I wouldn't be so sure. Perhaps we should leave it to the IWCA's "passive internet cheerleaders" to explain whether or not the party they support is hostile to all Leninist vanguard parties as well as to all openly pro-capitalist parties.

Anyway, I thought that all Trotskyist groups had the following implicit principle:

"That, as the [Revolutionary/Workers/Socialist/Communist/International/League/Party/Tendency(delete as appropriate)] is the one true descendent of the Fourth International founded by LeonTrotsky in 1938, it is hostile to all other groups claiming to be Trotskyist".

 

[Proper Tidy]

I wouldn't be so sure. Perhaps we should leave it to the IWCA's "passive internet cheerleaders" to explain whether or not the party they support is hostile to all Leninist vanguard parties as well as to all openly pro-capitalist parties.

But that would still be hostility on a point of ideological importance, wouldn't it? As opposed to being hostile in advance to any other organisation if it happens to be a political party.

You can say 'we oppose all other parties because they are capitalist' until you are blue in the face, but that is a sham - your hostility clause doesn't offer any debate on new political formations, you simply dismiss all others as capitalist because they are not the SPGB.

Anyway, I thought that all Trotskyist groups had the following implicit principle:

Well you thought wrong, didn't you, or else how would any Trotskyist parties have been able to enter into platforms with one another and with others?

Applied Marxism, Jean Luc.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I have actually been wondering whether the party was originally set up by capitalists. An image comes to mind of a group of old men sitting in their leather armchairs with their brandies and cigar"

More like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (in their Sunday best), I would have thought.

 

[scrappy1]

Whut?



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.

What is your evidence that we don't review our hostility clause regarding new parties? What makes you think they aren't hostile to us, just because it's not enshrined in their constitution?

 

[scrappy1]

So do you, by inaction. You let the tories in as much as people who voted for them.

So, what you're saying is that if we vote for the SPGB or spoil our ballot paper we are letting in the Tories?

That's like saying that in a war situation there is no point in registering as a consciousness objector because by being one you are in effect giving the "enemy" an extra soldier.

 

[Proper Tidy]

What is your evidence that we don't review our hostility clause regarding new parties?

Because it isn't in your constitution.

What makes you think they aren't hostile to us, just because it's not enshrined in their constitution?

My dad's bigger than you dad, for fucks sake. How would you know anyway, you've never given another party the chance.

Louis is right; the hostility clause is perfect for maintaining a small and insular sect. It is next to useless at winning support, defending the working class or bringing about socialism, however.

 

[Gravediggers]

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.

How did my inaction let Labour in? And my willingness to spoil my ballot paper a compromise with capitalism? Such an illogical conclusion is impossible to take seriously.

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.

If you care to look over previous postings I've dealt with the issue on the possibility of the capitalists using violence to impose their rule. Basically, they would not stand a chance when there are a majority of socialists near gaining political power. For by definition the workers are the strongest army in the world, both politically and military. The pity is the working class do not understand its own strengths.

If by chance we are denied participation in the political process the legitimacy of representative democracy is shown to be a sham and would in effect provide ammunition for socialism. I dread to think of the consequences and I suspect many of the capitalist class would also be thinking along the same lines. The creation of such a division is just not worth the effort. For they are admitting the game is up. The more astute capitalists would rather take their chances at the ballot box with a program of massive reforms in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

 

[two sheds]

So, what you're saying is that if we vote for the SPGB or spoil our ballot paper we are letting in the Tories?

That's like saying that in a war situation there is no point in registering as a consciousness objector because by being one you are in effect giving the "enemy" an extra soldier.

No, I don't believe that, it was a bit of an insult . It is however as logical as Gravedigger's post that i was replying to that voting for Plaid or the Greens means they are "willing to compromise with capitalism and have indefinitely deferred any serious challenge with commitment and determination by voting for the enemy".

 

[Proper Tidy]

How did my inaction let Labour in? And my willingness to spoil my ballot paper a compromise with capitalism?

Just typical of your abstraction and abstentionism, GD

 

[scrappy1]

Because it isn't in your constitution.



My dad's bigger than you dad, for fucks sake. How would you know anyway, you've never given another party the chance.

Louis is right; the hostility clause is perfect for maintaining a small and insular sect. It is next to useless at winning support, defending the working class or bringing about socialism, however.

I'm sure our insular sectness will make you very happy. After all, you wouldn't want us to succeed. I'm going off the air as far as you are concerned. Another case closed.

Correspondence closed. Bye bye.

 

[The39thStep]

Why? What have they done wrong?

what have they done right? Actually Freedom has published the new AFA book so they have gone up a notch imv.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm sure our insular sectness will make you very happy. After all, you wouldn't want us to succeed. I'm going off the air as far as you are concerned. Another case closed.

Correspondence closed. Bye bye.

I'd love you to succeed, but you never, ever will. That is the point.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Well you thought wrong, didn't you, or else how would any Trotskyist parties have been able to enter into platforms with one another and with others?

The better to outmanoeuvre, stab in the back and try to poach each others members. I don't know when you joined SPEW but there's a long history of rivalry with the SWP for control of such organisations as the Socialist Alliance. And look at the thread on the election of UNISON gen sec, each has their own candidate going hammer and tongs at each other. This is only par for the course since, in Trotskyist theory, there can only be one Vanguard Party, only one correct leader-party of the working class. All the others must be wrong.

Applied Marxism, Jean Luc.

I think it used to be called "dialectics, comrade".

 

[Proper Tidy]

The better to outmanoeuvre, stab in the back and try to poach each others members. I don't know when you joined SPEW but there's a long history of rivalry with the SWP for control of such organisations as the Socialist Alliance. And look at the thread on the election of UNISON gen sec, each has their own candidate going hammer and tongs at each other. This is only par for the course since, in Trotskyist theory, there can only be one Vanguard Party, only one correct leader-party of the working class. All the others must be wrong.

Now you're just smearing. Of course party a will have disagreements with party b, or they wouldn't be in separate parties. However, only SPGB and the SLP display the breathtaking elitism of believing themselves to be the one true path, despite all the evidence to the contrary of course.

Btw, there isn't an SP candidate and an SWP candidate in the Unison elections. There is Roger Bannister, an SP supporter and the most prominent left candidate in the past couple of elections, and Paul Holmes, of the... Labour Party. SP and SWP are backing different candidates, not both standing their own candidates.

I think it used to be called "dialectics, comrade".

You should try it, make a refreshing change from endlessly quoting a dead textile designer.

 

[Gravediggers]

Just typical of your abstraction and abstentionism, GD

And this is typical of your assertions.

 

[Gravediggers]

You should try it, make a refreshing change from endlessly quoting a dead textile designer.

There you go running down one of the most outstanding champions of the working class. We do not endlessly quote William Morris but when we do happen to quote him he destroys your arguments that state capitalism is an improvement for the working class.

Give me Morris any day than Trotsky, at least he was genuine and honest and understood what the implications of self-emancipation meant.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And this is typical of your assertions.

How is it not completely abstract and divorced from the real world, GD? It is a wholly symbolic act which achieves nothing and effectively rolls out the red carpet to be fucked over by the most viciously neo-liberal politicians. How does that either advance the interests of the working class or help bring about socialism? Abstract bollocks.

 

[Proper Tidy]

There you go running down one of the most outstanding champions of the working class. We do not endlessly quote William Morris but when we do happen to quote him he destroys your arguments that state capitalism is an improvement for the working class.

Give me Morris any day than Trotsky, at least he was genuine and honest and understood what the implications of self-emancipation meant.

Did a nice line in wallpaper too

 

[Jean-Luc]

what have they done right? Actually Freedom has published the new AFA book so they have gone up a notch imv.

I don't think that Afed and Freedom have anything to do with each other, have they? Aren't they rivals, Afed being "class-struggle anarchists" and Freedom reformist anarchists like the late Colin Ward?

I see by their declaration of principles that they too are out to convince workers that they are right:

Unlike other so-called socialists or communists we do not want power or control for our organisation. We recognise that the revolution can only be carried out directly by the working class. However, the revolution must be preceded by organisations able to convince people of the anarchist communist alternative and method.

Note the reference to "other so-called socialists or communists". Rather SPGBish!

 

[Gravediggers]

So there is no difference, and has never been any difference, between a Tory or a Labour government?

No difference between Pinochet's Chile and Olof Palme's Sweden?

Fuck me, you really are trapped in a bubble of abstraction aren't you?

No ProperTidy you are stuck in the bubble by trying your best to twist my words to suit your agenda. Lest not forget you voted for Plaid for you thought they were the lesser of two evils. Of course there is a difference between political regimes I never implied there wasn't I was merely underlining the differences in political economy.

Obviously, I would much prefer being a socialist in Sweden than in Chile but regardless of the dullness of Swedish politics and the harshness of Chile under a dictator I like all socialists would still be confronted with the problem of propagating the case for socialism to the best of our ability.

 

[The39thStep]

I don't think that Afed and Freedom have anything to do with each other, have they? Aren't they rivals, Afed being "class-struggle anarchists" and Freedom reformist anarchists like the late Colin Ward?

I see by their declaration of principles that they too are out to convince workers that they are right:

Note the reference to "other so-called socialists or communists". Rather SPGBish!

In that case I take back the coment I made about them going up a notch in my estimation

 

[Gravediggers]

Did a nice line in wallpaper too

Besides writing a lot more interesting tracts than Trotsky ever done.

 

[Gravediggers]

How is it not completely abstract and divorced from the real world, GD? It is a wholly symbolic act which achieves nothing and effectively rolls out the red carpet to be fucked over by the most viciously neo-liberal politicians. How does that either advance the interests of the working class or help bring about socialism? Abstract bollocks.

Of course its abstract politics to someone like yourself who has no political principles whatsoever and plainly sees the world has a battle between good and evil, where anything goes including even supporting the enemy as and when it suits your political agenda.

Consistency to you means resorting to the politics of the enemy where back stabbing is rife, political assassination par for the course, manipulation is necessary, arm twisting an exercise in conformity, and a kick in the teeth is common practice.

Whilst I have no need to resort to such tactics for Mr Angry finds it quite sufficient to throw your proposals for state capitalism back in your face so it continues to rattle your cage. Been there done that and it left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

You are in truth the best recruiting agent for true socialism I have come across. Keep up the good work. If I ever happen to visit Wrexham I shall drop a free copy of the Socialist Standard through you letterbox has a sign of gratitude.

 

[dannysp]

Whut?



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?

If there were another Party that agreed with Object and Principles of the SPGB on discovering such the two parties would immediately amalgamate, as has happened with the companion Parties of the WSM.

We see the WSM on analysing the evidence as the only Socialist organisation available to the working class, if we didn't we wouldn't be part of it.

I do not regard you as a Socialist PT because regrettably you support a party that puts forward a proposition that's state capitalism, so therefore it logically follows that you would not consider us with the SPGB as Socialists. So the question we need to ask you is, what Party or Parties would you see as Socialist?

 

[Gravediggers]

If there were another Party that agreed with Object and Principles of the SPGB on discovering such the two parties would immediately amalgamate, as has happened with the companion Parties of the WSM.

We see the WSM on analysing the evidence as the only Socialist organisation available to the working class, if we didn't we wouldn't be part of it.

I do not regard you as a Socialist PT because regrettably you support a party that puts forward a proposition that's state capitalism, so therefore it logically follows that you would not consider us with the SPGB as Socialists. So the question we need to ask you is, what Party or Parties would you see as Socialist?

ProperTidy having agreed with the object of the SPGB - many posts ago - and unable to produce or provide a definition of socialism from SPEW it surely logically follows that the only party you see has socialist is in fact the SPGB? If you reject such a logical conclusion IME this leaves your position very vulnerable, inconsistent and more importantly in contradistinction to your political beliefs that state capitalism is necessary before we have socialism.

 

[JWH]

Not having read Chandler I have no idea what his style of writing was.

You missed out. It's good stuff. Don't start with Goodbye, My Lovely.

 

[robbo203]

ProperTidy having agreed with the object of the SPGB - many posts ago - and unable to produce or provide a definition of socialism from SPEW it surely logically follows that the only party you see has socialist is in fact the SPGB? If you reject such a logical conclusion IME this leaves your position very vulnerable, inconsistent and more importantly in contradistinction to your political beliefs that state capitalism is necessary before we have socialism.

Yes this is quite true and it reminds me that Proper Tidy claimed way back on this thread that SPEW did actually make reference to socialism as a "moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth" Not once but frequently in its publications. I challenged PT to provide a single instance of this and he went all coy on me and dropped the subject.

So come one PT lets have your evidence now - or an admission that you were wrong. And an acknowlegement that SPEW does not advocate genuine socialism