Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SPGB

Proper Tidy said:
Then you are not aware enough...


At the second conference of the party, a resolution was passed forbidding members from holding office in trade unions - although this was overturned by the EC as ultra vires and contrary to the declaration of principles. E. J. B. Allen continued to write articles attacking trade unions and supporting De Leonist style Socialist Industrial Unions. Such arguments were ultimately rejected, on the grounds that a socialist union would have a tiny number of members so long as socialists remained in a minority; but when socialists attained a majority all unions would become socialist unions by having socialists members.

The agreed position, then, was to work within trade unions, but to also accept that they had different interests to political parties and to not try and take them over. Later, disputes arose as to whether trade union struggle could result in positive gains for the working class, or whether their role was purely defensive - the former view being taken by some members of the Ashbourne Court Group.

In the 1980s, the issue of trade unionism was at the heart of the decision to support Solidarity in Poland in their party's literature. Likewise, during the Miner's Strike of 1984-5, the party walked a line between supporting the miners whilst simultaneously suggesting that they couldn't and wouldn't win
.
Click to expand...

This doesnt sound to me like hostitliy to trade unionism, let alone suggest the pointlessness of industrial action as you claimed. Even the most hardline members of the SPGB who came to form the breakway organisation , the Socialist Studies Group, would not have argued that there was no point in taking industrial action or forming trade uniuons. That is pure fantasy on your part. What the SPGB has quite rightly cautioned against is the idea that trade unions could solve the problems of workers under capitalism. Saying that they cannot does not mean arguing against the need for trade unions for defensive purposes.


The allusion above to the Party's early flirtation with industrial unionism does not help your argument one bit either since this was in part a dispute within the party about the most effective way to organise on the industrial field to counter the downward pressure from capital. It was not about rejecting the need to organise as such. Either way, the weapon of industrial action would be regarded as crucial. As it happens the SPGB rejected the idea of socialist industrial unions precisely becuase they would be necessarily much smaller and hence less effective in the industrial struggle. That in itrself speaks volumes

It appears that once again you have been misreadiong the position of the SPGB. Incidentally, it would be useful if you could provide a link to the above quotation
 
Gravediggers said:
as 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.
Click to expand...
I think your politics are a bit rubbish but I "thank you for your service"* to the public.

* as, apparently, we're supposed to say to soldiers now...
 
dannysp said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a free capitalist society, if people wanted to live like Socialists they could do. Personally I advocate cooperative movements and giving time freely for the social good. Mostly though people can't even agree over basic things like who ate the cheese in a shared house, let alone distributing a Nations Wealth.

You can own the means of production and still be poor or not own any means of production and still be rich.

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.
Click to expand...

It's not all developed collectively though, the British didn't collectively develop the V2 flying bomb.

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.
Click to expand...

It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.

with common ownership we can provide for ourselves a society without the poverty that denies us our potential.
Click to expand...

But societies with common ownership have had poverty, rich people are free to re-distribute their wealth if they so wish but they choose not too. Why would people choose to accept common ownership?

Or are hardwired to be always greedy?
Click to expand...

We have evolved to be greedy, but evolution is an ongoing process.


Or does having humans poorer than you make you feel rich?
Click to expand...
Wealth is often comparative, but I generally feel the most rich when I think about my friendships and experinces.
 
robbo203 said:
This doesnt sound to me like hostitliy to trade unionism, let alone suggest the pointlessness of industrial action as you claimed.
Click to expand...

Whut?

At the second conference of the party, a resolution was passed forbidding members from holding office in trade unions... E. J. B. Allen continued to write articles attacking trade unions...
Click to expand...

Likewise, during the Miner's Strike of 1984-5, the party walked a line between supporting the miners whilst simultaneously suggesting that they couldn't and wouldn't win
Click to expand...
 
Blagsta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your confusing freedom to act in an existential manner with having the means and resources to carry out every action. You can be hungry and free just as you can be a satiated prisoner.

If people will not give up their physical wealth to those which are poor when there are no restrictions on doing so then Socialism does not (yet) work.
 
JWH said:
I think your politics are a bit rubbish but I "thank you for your service"* to the public.

* as, apparently, we're supposed to say to soldiers now...
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't show but actually I happen to thrive on struggle, its all I've ever known from childhood.
 
moon23 said:
Your confusing freedom to act in an existential manner with having the means and resources to carry out every action. You can be hungry and free just as you can be a satiated prisoner.

If people will not give up their physical wealth to those which are poor when there are no restrictions on doing so then Socialism does not (yet) work.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely nuts.

moon23 said:
It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.
Click to expand...

A cunt


moon23 said:
Wealth is often comparative, but I generally feel the most rich when I think about my friendships and experinces.
Click to expand...

And utterly clueless
 
moon23 said:
It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.
Click to expand...

To even make a comparison between the human species and other life forms illustrates your level of intelligence is very low indeed. But I suspect the reality is you have run out of trolling ideas and here for a giggle.

You are not funny and clearly exhibit signs of being a very, very lonely person which with all due respect means that using the internet to relieve your anxiety is a self defeating pursuit. It must be very painful for you when an obvious lack of social skills on your part results in reinforcing your self-alienation over and over again.

You need to put all this behind you and start afresh by putting your head down the toilet and keep on flushing like there is no tomorrow. By the way try holding your breath at the same time.
Click to expand...
 
Louis MacNeice said:
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
Click to expand...

The SPGB is made up of workers who agree with its Object and Declaration of Principles, that does not mean that there unanimity on all issues that arise in society, or within the Party, there are differences of opinion which are openly held and discussed, and that has to be healthy. If GD disagrees with this posting I expect him to express that disagreement here on urban75.


When the hustings meeting in question was reported on various websites it was typical red top journalism "Tosser SPGB candidate claims reason for domestic violence is poverty". No mention of the admittedly time constrained reasoning I gave. When I asked the question here: if poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence, what is? Not a peep, just more snide remarks from those that think it's sophisticated to be snippy. Is this topic a bit of a Pandora's box with the likelihood of a scalding spud inside that no one wants to handle?

I would contend that all violence is the result of poverty, baring in mind that poverty presents us with all sorts of symptoms. Take war for example; all modern wars are fought over the access to raw materials, trade routes, spheres of economic interests, the possibility of control over a regions labour power. The capitalist class have us engage in war so they can stay rich or get richer, and as being rich is the only way in capitalism to avoid the dreaded life of the poor, workers are persuaded that it's in their interests to fight, kill and be killed to save their masters from poverty.

The violence that's just gone down in Thailand, and what's going off in Jamaica, do you think this would happen if all humans were seen to embody equal humanity and so deserving real human conditions?


Think about it this way, in the kind of society we in the SPGB are doing our level best to bring into being this scenario could never occur: the child gets born into the working class, a servant class, goes to school to get trained, conditioned, programed to do as they are told and take on what's needed to to be profitable to their future employers, (users exploiters) humbled so to accept the servility necessary to parasitized.

In our vision all children of this world society of ours would embody our human future and so would find themselves at the centre of attention, the centre of effort. We will have recognized and a acknowledged the meaning of human life, our reason to be, simple but not simplistic, to secure their future. A future where we will have recognised who we are, and as sharing the same genes the same ancestors be true to ourselves as all part of the one human family, living as a family must if it is to be functional "from each according to ability to each according to needs". We will know as the old humanist pointed out "the condition for the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

We will have a society where production will be dedicated solely to meet human needs wherein we will give freely of our social creativity and take freely from the common treasury as the wallpaper designer imagined, as when everything and everyone has no price attached then everything and every one is free. Real human freedom can only be a human life without price.

What we need to know, and it's the absence of this knowledge which is preventing us achieving this life, is our common interests and more importantly as I see it, our common identity, we all share one and it doesn't take too much finding as we are, all of us irrefutably family. With that common identity we'll find that it is impossible to coerce, oppress, exploit of abuse in any way those that we identify with. When the global case of mistaken identity is cleared up what will follow naturally is global social cooperation.

Capitalism on the other hand sees humans a means to an end, not an end in themselves, to be exploited when profitable, discarded and ignored when not. The means of life are distributed not on the basis of common humanity but on the contents of share portfolios and bank accounts. According to the market that dominates the lives of humans: the more you have the more you've been able to take the more you are, the less you have the less you are, got nothing then you're nobody as evidenced by millions on millions of poor humans dieing every year for being nobodies, deserted by capitalism for the crime of being unprofitable. That' us, that's something of how we live in capitalism.

It's a sado masochistic way of living, you must have heard the joke, life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.

Is it little wonder then if some humans having to live their lives for others with the frustrations, insecurity, bullying at work while toiling at something useless and all the time the pressure to conform to a social and economic ideal that's an impossibility, with no real understanding of who they are and why they're having to take all this shit lash out, with their own shit not at those who've been shoving it down their throats, but at those nearest to them. What speaks reams about humans inherent sociability is that in this dog eat dog, war of all against all society, so few of us resort to violence.

For instance,take a group of wild normally social animals, confine them in overcrowded conditions, deny them the opportunity to follow their nature as wild animals, deny them a sufficiency of the means of life and you will have violence, without cheap readily available alcohol.

As for domestic violence among capitalists, capitalism is all about violence, capitalists are violent people. Living life as a parasite is not conducive to the formation of a caring, gentle and loving personality.

It can't be claimed that the will be no violence with the Socialism the WSM envisages, but the causes of violence unavoidable with capitalism will have disappeared.
 
Gravediggers said:
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'.
Click to expand...

1. A case for a form of socialism; insertion of the definite article doesn't convince.

2. I could have abstained, left the field clear for the the 'apologists of capitalism' and so by 'default gave support for capitalism'; now they really are weasel words, your weasel words. Which brings us on to...

3. The SPGB is a vanguard party; it is not a Leninist party. Here we're back with your Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

Louis MacNeice
 
moon23 said:
It's a free capitalist society, if people wanted to live like Socialists they could do. Personally I advocate cooperative movements and giving time freely for the social good. Mostly though people can't even agree over basic things like who ate the cheese in a shared house, let alone distributing a Nations Wealth.

You can own the means of production and still be poor or not own any means of production and still be rich.



It's not all developed collectively though, the British didn't collectively develop the V2 flying bomb.



It's natural for some life-forms to have things other's don't. If one Lion is born in a field with plenty to hunt and another in a desert you woudn't argue that was unfair just the way the cookie crumbles.



But societies with common ownership have had poverty, rich people are free to re-distribute their wealth if they so wish but they choose not too. Why would people choose to accept common ownership?



We have evolved to be greedy, but evolution is an ongoing process.


Wealth is often comparative, but I generally feel the most rich when I think about my friendships and experinces.
Click to expand...

Libertarian psycho evolving before our eyes.
 
dannysp said:
The SPGB is made up of workers who agree with its Object and Declaration of Principles, that does not mean that there unanimity on all issues that arise in society, or within the Party, there are differences of opinion which are openly held and discussed, and that has to be healthy. If GD disagrees with this posting I expect him to express that disagreement here on urban75.


When the hustings meeting in question was reported on various websites it was typical red top journalism "Tosser SPGB candidate claims reason for domestic violence is poverty". No mention of the admittedly time constrained reasoning I gave. When I asked the question here: if poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence, what is? Not a peep, just more snide remarks from those that think it's sophisticated to be snippy. Is this topic a bit of a Pandora's box with the likelihood of a scalding spud inside that no one wants to handle?

I would contend that all violence is the result of poverty, baring in mind that poverty presents us with all sorts of symptoms. Take war for example; all modern wars are fought over the access to raw materials, trade routes, spheres of economic interests, the possibility of control over a regions labour power. The capitalist class have us engage in war so they can stay rich or get richer, and as being rich is the only way in capitalism to avoid the dreaded life of the poor, workers are persuaded that it's in their interests to fight, kill and be killed to save their masters from poverty.

The violence that's just gone down in Thailand, and what's going off in Jamaica, do you think this would happen if all humans were seen to embody equal humanity and so deserving real human conditions?


Think about it this way, in the kind of society we in the SPGB are doing our level best to bring into being this scenario could never occur: the child gets born into the working class, a servant class, goes to school to get trained, conditioned, programed to do as they are told and take on what's needed to to be profitable to their future employers, (users exploiters) humbled so to accept the servility necessary to parasitized.

In our vision all children of this world society of ours would embody our human future and so would find themselves at the centre of attention, the centre of effort. We will have recognized and a acknowledged the meaning of human life, our reason to be, simple but not simplistic, to secure their future. A future where we will have recognised who we are, and as sharing the same genes the same ancestors be true to ourselves as all part of the one human family, living as a family must if it is to be functional "from each according to ability to each according to needs". We will know as the old humanist pointed out "the condition for the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

We will have a society where production will be dedicated solely to meet human needs wherein we will give freely of our social creativity and take freely from the common treasury as the wallpaper designer imagined, as when everything and everyone has no price attached then everything and every one is free. Real human freedom can only be a human life without price.

What we need to know, and it's the absence of this knowledge which is preventing us achieving this life, is our common interests and more importantly as I see it, our common identity, we all share one and it doesn't take too much finding as we are, all of us irrefutably family. With that common identity we'll find that it is impossible to coerce, oppress, exploit of abuse in any way those that we identify with. When the global case of mistaken identity is cleared up what will follow naturally is global social cooperation.

Capitalism on the other hand sees humans a means to an end, not an end in themselves, to be exploited when profitable, discarded and ignored when not. The means of life are distributed not on the basis of common humanity but on the contents of share portfolios and bank accounts. According to the market that dominates the lives of humans: the more you have the more you've been able to take the more you are, the less you have the less you are, got nothing then you're nobody as evidenced by millions on millions of poor humans dieing every year for being nobodies, deserted by capitalism for the crime of being unprofitable. That' us, that's something of how we live in capitalism.

It's a sado masochistic way of living, you must have heard the joke, life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.

Is it little wonder then if some humans having to live their lives for others with the frustrations, insecurity, bullying at work while toiling at something useless and all the time the pressure to conform to a social and economic ideal that's an impossibility, with no real understanding of who they are and why they're having to take all this shit lash out, with their own shit not at those who've been shoving it down their throats, but at those nearest to them. What speaks reams about humans inherent sociability is that in this dog eat dog, war of all against all society, so few of us resort to violence.

For instance,take a group of wild normally social animals, confine them in overcrowded conditions, deny them the opportunity to follow their nature as wild animals, deny them a sufficiency of the means of life and you will have violence, without cheap readily available alcohol.

As for domestic violence among capitalists, capitalism is all about violence, capitalists are violent people. Living life as a parasite is not conducive to the formation of a caring, gentle and loving personality.

It can't be claimed that the will be no violence with the Socialism the WSM envisages, but the causes of violence unavoidable with capitalism will have disappeared.
Click to expand...

1. People can read the reports for themselves; I can understand why you might choose to misrepresent them.

2. So the SPGB's socialism won't eradicate poverty; given that violence may well still exist in your day dream. It's a poor case for socialism that can't even sustain itself over one post on an internet bulletin board.

Louis MacNeice
 
Gravediggers said:
To even make a comparison between the human species and other life forms illustrates your level of intelligence is very low indeed. But I suspect the reality is you have run out of trolling ideas and here for a giggle.
Click to expand...


It just illustrates you can’t make an appeal to nature to argue for a common ownership of natural resources, in which case the argument to be made is about how society should organize itself. You have to argue there is something ethically immoral about an unequal distribution of wealth, and then show that the alternative manner of distribution would equate to ensuring people don’t live in poverty.

I’m just arguing the power that would be needed to ensure an equal distribution would create inefficient authoritarian or bureaucratic systems that would result in less wealth being created and more poverty over all.

I’m also suggesting the problems with Capitalism are not simply a product of the manner in which we interact economically but also wider cultural and social problems about the manner/nature of people. Capitalism does not dictate how people interact with goods and services, there are groups living in collectivist or socialist lifestyles, there is nothing to stop people forming clubs and societies to take control of the means of production.
Click to expand...
 
moon23 said:
<blah>
Capitalism does not dictate how people interact with goods and services, there are groups living in collectivist or socialist lifestyles, there is nothing to stop people forming clubs and societies to take control of the means of production.
Click to expand...

Of course it does you knob-end - commodity capitalism is about the most totalising social relationship possible.
 
=moon23;10697919]
Gravediggers said:
It just illustrates you can’t make an appeal to nature to argue for a common ownership of natural resources, in which case the argument to be made is about how society should organize itself. You have to argue there is something ethically immoral about an unequal distribution of wealth, and then show that the alternative manner of distribution would equate to ensuring people don’t live in poverty.

I’m just arguing the power that would be needed to ensure an equal distribution would create inefficient authoritarian or bureaucratic systems that would result in less wealth being created and more poverty over all.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not about the equal distribution of wealth but about free access to the means of living and production for use to meet peoples needs. A totally different concept to the one you are suggesting.

I’m also suggesting the problems with Capitalism are not simply a product of the manner in which we interact economically but also wider cultural and social problems about the manner/nature of people. Capitalism does not dictate how people interact with goods and services, there are groups living in collectivist or socialist lifestyles, there is nothing to stop people forming clubs and societies to take control of the means of production.
Click to expand...

So its possible to opt out of capitalism, if this is indeed the case why are we still stuck with capitalism? Where are these collectives, clubs, societies, etc, you mention? Name a few and I and others will join them tomorrow.
Click to expand...
 
moon23 said:
It just illustrates you can’t make an appeal to nature to argue for a common ownership of natural resources, in which case the argument to be made is about how society should organize itself. You have to argue there is something ethically immoral about an unequal distribution of wealth, and then show that the alternative manner of distribution would equate to ensuring people don’t live in poverty.
Click to expand...

What has nature or morality got to do with anything being discussed on this thread? Try thinking about the material conditions that people experience and how that experience influences what they do instead of thinking about what makes you feel warm inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Newcastle SPGB meeting this Saturday, 22nd May
Replies
9
Views
689
whichfinder
W
W
Glasgow SPGB meeting next Wednesday, 19th May
Replies
0
Views
397
whichfinder
W
W
Norwich SPGB meeting this Saturday, 15th May
Replies
0
Views
386
whichfinder
W
kenny g
Fun, games and bun fights at the SPGB Clapham HQ
Replies
1
Views
376
charlie mowbray
C
kenny g
Fun, games and bun fights at the SPGB Clapham HQ
Replies
24
Views
1K
butchersapron
B
Back
Top Bottom