SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Now you're tempting me to sit the entrance test.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Nope, nothing on the home page, nearest would be: "The Socialist Party is contesting both the general election and local elections in London.." What would you do if you got in again?
Gravediggers
New Member
Louis I find your repetitive nonsense so tiresome on times, especially when you are fully aware to whats occurred with the misquoting of danny's talk. The reason I have not replied to your posts is because I think its down to danny to put you in the picture to what really happened at the hustings and not some wild accusation made by somebody from the opposition. There are two sides to every story, has you keep reminding me Louis.
Has to the causes of domestic violence, I have to say your question reminds me so much of my counselling days when the only people coming through the door were members of the working class. Especially, when I recall the domestic scene during the miners strike and there was an initial upsurge of domestic violence occurring with the miners outing their frustration on the family members and themselves. And in truth it was exactly what my colleagues and I expected.
However, that picture soon changed once it was realised we were in for the long haul and the women became directly involved with the struggle over pit closures. Suddenly, the abuser role changed with some of the women discovering empowerment to such a degree it provided the opportunity of getting some of your own back, so to say. Sadly, some of them went OTT and drove their male spouses to commiting suicide once the pit closures started in earnest.
So yes given the circumstances domestic violence can be caused through poverty. But poverty is not the sole cause of violence within the family, despite the fact that 90% of family disputes are over finances or the allocation of money - like who gets what, "and my salary/wage is my affair and fuck all to do with you, you bitch, and where's my fucking dinner?"
And there are so many factors, issues and problems involved it is pointless trying to pin the cause(s) down just to class or even capitalism. Family upbringing can be a central factor if there is a family history of violence within the family, but not necessarily so, because there are so many instances of people coming out the other end determined in not to follow the same route. Long-term mental health problems can be another central factor if the illness remains undiagnosed, or even when it is diagnosed and the person are in denial of the problem.
I could of course go on and on, but I'm sure you have read enough to get the picture. Obviously, the central concern of the posters and viewers of this thread would be: To what degree will the incident of domestic violence occur in a socialist society - has defined by the SPGB? The supposition being it will continue regardless of the type of mode of production in place. We would be foolish to accept that socialism would be unproblematic. And who on earth desires a world where we would be all lovey-dovey?
Having said that, one thing is for certain, the incidents of family disputes over finances would disappear overnight. Another possibility is neither the abuser or the abused would feel trapped within their particular environment for both could take advantage of what free access provides regarding alternative accommodation, etc. And I don't just mean refuge for either sex. Most of all when we talk of socialism we are stipulating not only a society of equals but also of free association. I could go on but I'm sure you and others will figure out what the possibilities are in socialism to lessen the incident of domestic violence occurring.
In my expectation, for what its worth, the framework of socialism would provide sufficient scope for people to settle disputes of a domestic nature without having to resort to being abused or being the abuser. And now you've got me crying because its brought so many memories flooding back to what happened during the miners strike.
whichfinder
New Member
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I cited three reports of Danny's nonsense; only one came from an opposing candidate. Of course all three are undoubtedly apologist for capitalism or worse.
The rest of your post comes across as an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny; I hope he appreciates all the effort you've put in.
It's just a shame you had to disappear the 'plenty of capitalist bastards that beat the crap out their wives and children'; but that's the sort of thing that happens when there are party interests to be defended.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The first piece in bold is just a reiteration of Danny's failed attempt to put these words in other people's mouths: 'so poverty has nothing to do with domestic violence'. It was a cheap shot when he did it and it remains one.
The second piece is just yet another example of your stock in trade day dreaming; it might give you a warm glow, but it doesn't make a convincing case for anything.
Louis MacNeice
Gravediggers
New Member
You take the biscuit you honestly do. First of all you accuse me of shying away from the domestic violence issue and then when I do reply to this accusation you then accuse me of, "an attempt at an emotional smokescreen, blown to hide the contradictions between you and Danny". I can assure you that no such thing was intended or made. You asked and I delivered to the best of my ability and from my own experiences.
As for the reason why I did not include, 'plenty of capitalist bastards that beat the crap out their wives and children' is because I had already made reference to the non-issue of class in a previous post like you say. And so no reason to repeat myself any further in this regard, but did see a reason to expand on the issue by mentioning, ".... it is pointless trying to pin the cause(s) down just to class or even capitalism."
Sigh. Obviously you are resistant to the request Ive made countless times so let me put it another way . Does the quote you provided imply the abolition of wage labour and money and, if so. why when you specifically advocate things like a minimum wage in your "what we stand for" peice
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Am I writing in a different language? Dear me Robbo. Perhaps you should actually go back and read the introduction I helpfully provided for you as a quote a page back. I have suggested doing this three times now, yet you appear to have failed to do so. You might find that it answers your question.
<something about horses and water>
Gravediggers
New Member
Louis we are well aware that anything I write gives you a warm glow and provides you with an opportunity to vent your spleen and vehement objections, or dare I say it, complete rejection of the socialist case. But how can we take you seriously after you admitted to voting for the Greens and by default gave support for capitalism? And then there is your weasely attempt at calling the SPGB a vanguard party.
It seems you are scraping the barrel yet again in an attempt that seems very close to becoming an apology for capitalism where the first line of defence is, 'If you don't like the message kill the messenger'.
I think the point that you miss here is that the SPGB is only a political party, it is not everything. I am not a member but to be fair to the SPGB it does urge militant trade union action in the economic field and many of its members are, or have been, active and even prominent trade unionists.
In the political field we have a different situation. The advocacy of jam tommorow in the form of reforms enacted by the state (i.e reformism) is a I think a big mistake and ultimately a waste of time. Its not that reforms will never benefit the workers - the SPGB does not say that - it just that by advocating reforms your are stepping onto a treadmill that is never really going to get you anywhere. Capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the workers and I think in this respect the SPGB analysis has proven substantially correct
Gravediggers
New Member
Here is what he is on about. All this to'in and fro'in over one frigging word is getting on my toot.
Quote:
The Socialist Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people.
Now, we've been through this before. Do you see what they do there?
I'll give you a clue. Also.
Reply With Quote
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Hasn't always been the case, has it? You were in fact hostile to trade unionism in your past. Even now, you still take the viewpoint that trade unionism and industrial action is essentially pointless. I fail to see how that is conducive to militant trade unionism.
But nobody is disagreeing that the aim is the abolition of capitalism. You are waiting for a perfect revolution that will never happen - that it will be peaceful, swift, and will encompass the whole of the world, or at least the west, at an even pace.
Where did you get this idea from? The position of the SPGB as far as I am aware has always been that the industrial organisation of workers into trade unions is a necessary but essentially defensive requirement under capitalism - to resist the downward pressure extered by capital on pay and conditions. As a political party the SPGB does not get directly involved in trade struggles but its members do. It is sheer nonsense to say that the SPGB sees "trade unionism and industrial action" as "essentially pointless". I think you are confusing the SPGB's general standpoint with the observations by SPGBers that certain industrial actions might be pointless because the economic situation may not be conducive to workers achieving what they want. This is particularly so at a time of recession. The most effective strike is the one that is short sharp and solidly supported, prolonged industrial action almost invariably fails because the workers are in a weakened postion. Sometimes it is better to be prudent, cut your losses and live to fight another day.
Nobody is disagreeing that the aim is the abolition of capitalism, you say. Its just that they are not at all interested in promnoting that aim! This is certainly the case with SPEW. The SPGB doesnt say that revolution will be necessarily compeletly peaceful but it does say that you cannot possibly have a revolution unless workers understand and want socialism. It cannot be imposed from above. Understanding socialism means knowing what it entails - knowing, for example, that we are talking about a quite different kind of society in which there will be no money, no wage labour , no economic classes, no state. Does the SPEW say anything about this? No it does not. What it stands for is clear. It stands for a society in which there is still money and wage labour and no matter how much you might duck and dive you know this is the case even if you cannot bring yourself to admit. Its all there in the "what we stand for" section of your website. I suggest you read it and see for yourself that what it is advocating is nothing more than state capitalist reformism
I know what you said about having a society not run for the profit of a few. Ive read that several times, thank you very much, so it is quite unnecesary for you to tell me to read it again. But the argument has moved on and you are still stuck in the same rut.
My point is what does it mean to have a society not run for the profit of a few. What are the practical and logical consequences that flow from this. SPEW doesnt say anything. It does not say that it will be a society without money and wage labour , does it now? It doesnt say it seeks the abolition of wage labour, does it now? On the contrary it talks about retaining the wages system by virtue of the fact that it calls for a mimumum wage.
See , this is what I am getting at - not that you dont say that you want a "society not run for the profit of a few" but that you, or SPEW, dont know or care what this means. It all up in the air, a woolly cuddly sentiment that could just as easily be expressed by the young Liberals. And as someone has already pointed out, just because you dont want a society run for the profit of a few does not necessarily mean you want to get rid of capitalism. You could for example want a capitalist society in which there is widespread profit sharing. Which is why I said youve got to spell out what you mean by this and frankly SPEW dont
Proper Tidy
Arsed
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've never seen such pride in impotence before. Never seen the elevation of irrelevancy to a principle before. And I had met the spgb before - these are surely false prophets
Gravediggers
New Member
If this is really the case how do you explain the casualties of wars? Have they not been murdered by their fellow workers who have taken sides in capitalist conflicts? Or am I also a fantasist? Duh!!!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I really really do not need to explain how the people killed in WW1 and WW2 were killed by the capitalists because they were doing what the capitalists didn't want them to. I think the burden for that idiocy lies with you alone. Dud indeed.
Gravediggers
New Member
Butchers aka Geri as usual found dead in the water! Cause of death - one too many attempts at defending the indefensible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Did you mean doing what they wanted them to? I think you did didn't you? Which makes it a really shit example of the capitalists killing people for not doing what they want.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Are you suggesting they are the same person?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This is just a bizarre thing to post btw
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
I don't know. I imagine Marx had in mind some democratic central administration which wouldn't be a "state", ie an organ of coercion controlled by a social class (as of course in a society not divided into classes there'd be no need for a state). Having said this, I don't think that "labour-time vouchers" was a good idea or would have worked for long even in 1875. There were other ways of dealing with temporary shortages, eg equal sharing (as suggested by Kropotkin who wrote a good criticism of them at the time) or various points systems according to need.
I think I can see what you're trying to say and don't want to engage in a battle of quotes (but of course will). I don't think Marx regarded "labour-time vouchers" as money, but rather as ration tickets or like tickets to a show. There's this passage in the Critique of the Gotha Programme:
And this from Capital Vol I:
And Volume II:
So, Marx was envisaging even the first phase of socialist/communist society as moneyless as well as classless and so stateless.
But, as I said, this is all rather academic as we're living in 2010 not 1875 and things have moved on a lot since then. For those who are interested there's a good discussion of this whole issue here (where trolls don't normally frequent).,
Gravediggers
New Member
Butchers as usual found dead in the water! Cause of death - one too many attempts at defending the indefensible.
Gravediggers
New Member
No just they are related. And my apologies for the bump ups.
Similar threads
