SPGB

[Louis MacNeice]

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:

It's a sunny day in a local park. First man is walking along the path by the duck pond; he takes a swig from a bottle of Becks. Second man is slumped next to a bench cradling a nearly empty two litre bottle of White Lightening. Seeing the first man, he tries to sit up straight, points an accusing finger and shouts 'pisshead!'

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Obviously, I would much prefer being a socialist in Sweden than in Chile ...

And would happily free ride on the efforts of others that had been expended over decades to create that difference, all the while telling them how wrong they had been and how they had wasted their time.

Louis MacNeice

 

[two sheds]

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.

I did care to look at your previous postings and no, they didn't address it. They just regurgitated hopeful statements. Say for example by some miracle you gained a 'majority of socialists near gaining political power' in Iraq. You're saying that the US army/navy/airforce 'would not stand a chance' against the Iraqi workers (part of are the 'strongest army in the world, both politically and military' remember). I suggest to the honorable member that he has his head up his arse.

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.

This is just hopeful toss. You're using phrases like 'I dread to think of the consequences' and 'For they are admitting the game is up' as a substitute for critical thought. If the capitalists are the evil people you say they are they will stamp on any mass movement to socialism very early on. They've got helicopter gunships and tanks remember, you can wave your pamphlets at them and dream of your socialist majority all you like.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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

The SPGB as trading standards officers.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

That is the same quality of assertion as the one made by your candidate re. poverty being the cause of domestic violence; i.e. one driven by an ossified and partial ideology rather than by observation and analysis of everyday life.

Keep them coming GD. Make that case; remember you're winning hearts and minds her.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

It's a sunny day in a local park. First man is walking along the path by the duck pond; he takes a swig from a bottle of Becks. Second man is slumped next to a bench cradling a nearly empty two litre bottle of White Lightening. Seeing the first man, he tries to sit up straight, points an accusing finger and shouts 'pisshead!'

Louis MacNeice

Nice little story but hardly worthy of the original Louis Macneice. I take it that, as the accuser, he's the man on the bench.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Nice little story but hardly worthy of the original Louis Macneice. I take it that, as the accuser, he's the man on the bench.

No, there is no man on the bench. Read it again.

Louis MacNeice

 

[The39thStep]

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:

Probably the first time anyone has quoted Nigel Irritable as a source of anything appropriate other than as a collector of Trotskyist artifacts and perspectives.

 

[Gravediggers]

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

Although he disliked the use of olde language, which prompted him and others to post alternative wording to bring it up to date, he actually agreed with the object .

 

[dannysp]

That is the same quality of assertion as the one made by your candidate re. poverty being the cause of domestic violence; i.e. one driven by and ossified and partial ideology rather than by observation and analysis of everyday life.

Keep them coming GD. Make that case; remember you're winning hearts and minds her.

Louis MacNeice

What I said was was part of an analysis of the problem of domestic violence if it was reported as merely the bald assertion, poverty = domestic violence, then that says more about the reporters than it says about me.

This is like the politicians who when having to counter the idea that poverty causes crime, leap heroically to the the defence of the of the poor, but really the system, by saying some thing like, the the majority of the poor in the country/their constituency are decent, hardworking and law abiding people.

So poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence because most poor people don't beat up their partners. So what is the cause?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What I said was was part of an analysis of the problem of domestic violence if it was reported as merely the bald assertion, poverty = domestic violence, then that says more about the reporters than it says about me.

This is like the politicians who when having to counter the idea that poverty causes crime, leap heroically to the the defence of the of the poor, but really the system, by saying some thing like, the the majority of the poor in the country/their constituency are decent, hardworking and law abiding people.

So poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence because most poor people don't beat up their partners. So what is the cause?

That's the politician in you showing Danny; nobody has said this, but you really wish they had.

Give GD an oar and get about your business.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'd missed your first politician's stock reply - 'I was quoted out of context' - three times as it happens, and all to the same effect. You should get a refund on those public speaking lessons.

 

[Gravediggers]

And would happily free ride on the efforts of others that had been expended over decades to create that difference, all the while telling them how wrong they had been and how they had wasted their time.

Louis MacNeice

Louis I think you posed much the same argument many posts ago. Socialists are not free riders when it comes to struggling for democracy and recognise a democratic framework is essential to the struggle for socialism. And we would most certainly not tell the workers how wrong they had been and it was all a waste of time.

We would however, be explaining to the workers, that they need to raise themselves up off their knees and look beyond the limitations of representative democracy under capitalism. In short, understanding the concept and workings of democracy is all to the good but there is a far larger struggle taking place which they need to understand and participate in - socialism.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis I think you posed much the same argument many posts ago. Socialists are not free riders when it comes to struggling for democracy and recognise a democratic framework is essential to the struggle for socialism. And we would most certainly not tell the workers how wrong they had been and it was all a waste of time.

We would however, be explaining to the workers, that they need to raise themselves up off their knees and look beyond the limitations of representative democracy under capitalism. In short, understanding the concept and workings of democracy is all to the good but there is a far larger struggle taking place which they need to understand and participate in - socialism.

What even when they said they'd campaigned and voted social democrat; you little fibber.

Raise them up GD; heal them and let them walk again.

In the meantime Danny needs some help; you'd better get on the other oar because at the moment he's just going round in circles.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

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.

Tell that to the Anarchist Federation.

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.

Thanks for the clarification but it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class. I haven't gone into the details but I imagine the SWP has refused to back Bannister because he's too close to SPEW. Having said that, if I was in Unison, I think I'd vote for Holmes. As a non-Trotskyist he wouldn't be beholden to some vanguard party outside the union.

 

[two sheds]

it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class.

Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.

Yes I do and can see how this must look to people looking in from the outside, but I can't see what can be done about it.

All the groups calling themselves "socialist" are never going to be able to get together either because they are not agreed on what socialism is or, if they do, on how to get there or because some want to be leaders. If one group wants to stick to the original meaning of the word socialism then, as this thread shows, they get a bollocking for being sectarian, arrogant, vanguardist and I don't know what.

I think all we can do is let a thousand flowers bloom and hope that an understanding of what needs to be done emerges. In any event, none of the groups calling themselves socialist can establish a free society of common ownership, democratic control and production for use not profit. Only the majority of currently non-political people can when, and if, they want it.

 

[dannysp]

Don't you see this as a problem? If the SP, SWP and SWGB are all at each others' throats then what hope do you have for any form of socialism? It's a bit fucking pointless if you can't even find common ground and get on amongst yourselves.

Here's the "common ground" the WSM offers.

OBJECT

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.


What the left have problems with is common ownership, they would much prefer state ownership and rather than democratic control, state control.

 

[moon23]

Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.

I'm sure someone will be along soon.

Louis MacNeice

 

[moon23]

No, it doesn't. It only responds to paying needs, ie needs needs backed up by money to pay for the means to satisfy them. The trouble is that under capitalism the amount of money most people have is rationed by the size of their pay packet (or salary cheque) and that this is always less than the value of what they produce -- otherwise where would the profits of the capitalist firms that employ them come from? No, the economic law under capitalism is "can't pay, can't have".

Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.

Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.

If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.

 

[Blagsta]

Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.

Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.

If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.

It's not though is it. It's the freedom of people who own/control resources to respond how they like. It's a poor sort of freedom that excludes the majority of the population.

 

[Jean-Luc]

If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.

Did you mean to say "isnt"? Anyway, what do you think is the origin of profit? And has capitalism in your sense ever existed?

 

[two sheds]

Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.

Ooooo nice i hadn't realised that

[heads off to Dixons to agree to buy a 10 Mpixel camera for 5p]

 

[Proper Tidy]

Thanks for the clarification but it still remains true that SPEW and SWP are at each others throats as rival would-be Trotskyist leaders of the working class. I haven't gone into the details but I imagine the SWP has refused to back Bannister because he's too close to SPEW.

I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask an SWP supporter in Unison.

said that, if I was in Unison, I think I'd vote for Holmes. As a non-Trotskyist he wouldn't be beholden to some vanguard party outside the union.

No, he would be beholden to the LP instead. Your trotphobia takes you to some odd places, doesn't it JL?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Although he disliked the use of olde language, which prompted him and others to post alternative wording to bring it up to date, he actually agreed with the object .

Communists agree with communism shocker.

The problem, as the squeegees may recall, is getting to that point.

Your approach seems to come down to crossing your fingers, clipping your heels together twice and saying William Morris three times into a mirror.

You blatantly ignore the need for the working class to take control of the means of production, of government, and of the military, before the majority get drowned in their own blood - and anybody else who takes such flippancies like reality into account are guilty of the heresy of state-capitalism.

You're an odd bunch.

 

[scrappy1]

Ok, so can anybody tell me what the Socialist Party of Great Britians' USP (Unique Selling Point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.

That's a "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?" question.

The others aren't socialist parties, so that makes us better because we favour a world of social equality--the others favour state capitalism, some including repression of the former capitalist class. Of course, if you don't like the idea of socialism as defined by the SPGB, then it won't be a selling point.

 

[dannysp]

Capitalism is the freedom for people to respond to needs how they like, there are plenty of indivduals and buisness that respond to needs through charity or giving away things for free.

Capitalism is not forcing all goods to be exchanged for profit, it is the freedom for people to choose themselves what agreements for trade to come to.

If people don't provide for the poor, it's because they are too selfish which is societies fault.

Yes I agree! Society is at fault but what kind of society might this be?

Do you agree with the son of god when he is reported to have said "the poor will always be with us", so not interested in why humans are poor. We in the WSM are, and ask the subversive question why are there poor people? What we conclude is the poor are poor because they don't own the means of production, the rich are rich because they do.

We've discovered that the productive technology we have today has been developed socially and collectively by all humans throughout our history so we figure they should be socially and collectively owned and controlled.

We say that therefore the natural and industrial resources of our world are the common heritage of all humans, but that's not the case is it? So some have something they're not entitled to.

With common ownership we can provide for ourselves a society without the poverty that denies us our potential.

Or are hardwired to be always greedy?

Or does having humans poorer than you make you feel rich?

 

[dannysp]

ok, so can anybody tell me what the socialist party of great britians' usp (unique selling point)? A couple sentances as to why it's better than the other socialists parties and groups.

Democracy

 

[Jean-Luc]

Your trotphobia takes you to some odd places, doesn't it?

You're right. Knowing how they operate (secret caucus meetings, etc) I wouldn't trust any member of a Trotskyist organisation to behave democratically or not to put the interests of their organisation before that of the membership of a trade union. But if it's any consolation, if Holmes hadn't been a candidate, I'd probably decide to vote for Bannister just to show Prentis & Co that there was a militant minority in the union. In fact, come to think of it (given that Prentis is going to win), there's probably no harm in him being opposed by 2 militant candidates as their combined vote will be higher than if there was just one of them.

 

[dannysp]

Communists agree with communism shocker.

The problem, as the squeegees may recall, is getting to that point.

Your approach seems to come down to crossing your fingers, clipping your heels together twice and saying William Morris three times into a mirror.

You blatantly ignore the need for the working class to take control of the means of production, of government, and of the military, before the majority get drowned in their own blood - and anybody else who takes such flippancies like reality into account are guilty of the heresy of state-capitalism.

You're an odd bunch.

Nowhere near as odd as you PT


WSM declaration of principles

Clause 6

# That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.