SPGB

[robbo203]

You're the one not grasping it Robbo.

You say the SPGB don't want to lead anybody; that the working class must be convinced of socialism but not necessarily the SPGB. You use this as a rebuttal to all criticisms. Yet the SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study, and that shows the lie to your claims - the SPGB want a monopoly as a political party (within the realms of Socialism TM). You want to lead the revolution.

You may not be vanguardist in the Leninist sense - yours is a much cruder and disguised sense - but it is plainly obvious that you are vanguardist.

And trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic btw.

Lets look at this argument shall we?

Lets look first of all at this claim of yours that the "SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study". As usual you supply no evidence for this claim but insofar as I can grasp your meaning you seem to be saying that the SPGB rejects every other political party calling itself socialist simply because and for no better reason than that it is another political party separate from the SPGB. Well this is not true at all, is it? Anybody who knows anything about the SPGB - and you evidently know precious little judging by your previous remarks - will know that it invariably approaches other parties from a standpoint of studying what they stand for.

They look at your political party - SPEW - for example, and reject it not out of some perverse intent to monopolise the market in socialist politics, if I might put it like that, but because any serious study of SPEW reveals quite clearly that it does not stand for socialism despite its name. It stand for the reform of capitalism and calls for the nationalisation (state capitalism) of parts of industry. Nowehere does SPEW call for the abolition of the wage system. Absolutely nowhere. But if you knew anything about socialism you will understand that this is the litmus test of revolutionary socialism - the abolition of the wages system.

So the SPGB quite rightly rejects SPEW as a mere reformist , state capitalist outfit that , far from promoting spocialism stands in the way of that goal. But what is there was another political party that stood for the real thing -revolutionary socialism? What would be the attitude of the SPGB to such a party?

I am not a member of the SPGB (which you seem to keep on forgetting) and am somewhat critical of its blanket application of its it hostility clause (though Grave Diggers tells me this is changing) but, in fairness, I dont the SPGB would behave in the way you surmise. To the contrary I think it would actually be delighted to discover another organisation thinking along the same lines as itself. As I said in an early post there was I believe an initiative from within the SPGB to reach out and join forces with that other manifestation of the impossibilitst tradition - the SLP. I am also pleased to hear that the SPGB these days is taking a much more relaxed apprach to other organisations within the non market anti-statist sector such as some anarchist groups with whom it has held discussions

In any event, your assertion that the SPGB wants to "lead the revolution" is absurd. In what sense might I ask do think this is the case? Plainly the SPGB has no intention to act on behalf of the working class and sees itself as merely an instrument through which the workers will capture state power to abolish capitalism and install socialism. But after that the SPGB goes out of existence. It is, in fact, the only political party that paradoxically is working towards a situation in which it can abolish itself. There will be no need for an SPGB when we have socialism

Then finally there is your remark that "trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic". Really? You yourself agree that the SPGB is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense so what, pray, is the non leninist version of vanguardism you have in mind? What does it consist in? A vanguard by definition is a small section of the population. I have no problem with this defintion or with seeing the SPGB as a vanguard in this sense. But what does it mean to be a vanguardist.

Does it mean striving to act on behalf of, or represent, the majority while remaining a small minority. Well that doesnt fit the description of the SPGB does it now? Does it mean striving to ensure one remains forever a small minority whose thinking is more advanced that the rest of the population - a self perpetuating elite. Well that too does not fit the description of the SPGB since it clearly actively seeks membership growth and the propagation of its ideas. I agree its membership criteria might be a little too strict - I think its prohibition on religious ideas within the party, for example, is unnecessary and restrictive - but by and large it clearly wants workers to become members. It clearly wants to become a mass party

See, the problem with critics of the SPGB like you, Louis and Butchers is that, when it comes down to it, all your critcisms amount to weasel words. You havent really worked out clearly what it is you object to about the SPGB which is why all you can do is chuck around a few rather vague and absract insults that indulge your sense of hostility (ironically, Ive seen more hostility from some of its critics than I have ever seen from the SPGB, notwithstanding the latters hostility clause). When pushed to explain yourself in simple concrete terms you are lost for words and seek refuge in banalities

 

[Proper Tidy]

This is utter bollocks man.

Lets look at this argument shall we?

Lets look first of all at this claim of yours that the "SPGB are hostile to all other political parties as a matter of policy not study". As usual you supply no evidence for this claim but insofar as I can grasp your meaning you seem to be saying that the SPGB rejects every other political party calling itself socialist simply because and for no better reason than that it is another political party separate from the SPGB. Well this is not true at all, is it? Anybody who knows anything about the SPGB - and you evidently know precious little judging by your previous remarks - will know that it invariably approaches other parties from a standpoint of studying what they stand for.

The evidence is the SPGB's own fucking hostility clause! The hostility clause states that you are hostile to all other organisations that are also political parties.

You're lying when you say the SPGB 'study what they stand for' - it may well be the case that the squeegees study retrospectively, but you are, and this is crucial Robbo, automatically hostile to any and every other political body.

They look at your political party - SPEW - for example, and reject it not out of some perverse intent to monopolise the market in socialist politics, if I might put it like that, but because any serious study of SPEW reveals quite clearly that it does not stand for socialism despite its name. It stand for the reform of capitalism and calls for the nationalisation (state capitalism) of parts of industry. Nowehere does SPEW call for the abolition of the wage system. Absolutely nowhere. But if you knew anything about socialism you will understand that this is the litmus test of revolutionary socialism - the abolition of the wages system.

This is fucking rhetoric. I'm not interested in hearing your sermon Robbo.

So the SPGB quite rightly rejects SPEW as a mere reformist , state capitalist outfit that , far from promoting spocialism stands in the way of that goal. But what is there was another political party that stood for the real thing -revolutionary socialism? What would be the attitude of the SPGB to such a party?

But this is retrospective. You are hostile as a matter of course.

Guilty until proved innocent, that is how it works isn't it?

I am not a member of the SPGB (which you seem to keep on forgetting) and am somewhat critical of its blanket application of its it hostility clause (though Grave Diggers tells me this is changing) but, in fairness, I dont the SPGB would behave in the way you surmise. To the contrary I think it would actually be delighted to discover another organisation thinking along the same lines as itself. As I said in an early post there was I believe an initiative from within the SPGB to reach out and join forces with that other manifestation of the impossibilitst tradition - the SLP. I am also pleased to hear that the SPGB these days is taking a much more relaxed apprach to other organisations within the non market anti-statist sector such as some anarchist groups with whom it has held discussions

The Squeegees will hold discussions with anybody and everybody - they debated with the NF in 2006 I believe. That some squeegees have debated with some anarchists doesn't prove a lot. I should imagine a more truthful portrayal of the squeegees can be found in the reaction of its supporters - of which you are one, whether you pay subs or not - to anybody and everybody outside of their little bubble.

In any event, your assertion that the SPGB wants to "lead the revolution" is absurd. In what sense might I ask do think this is the case? Plainly the SPGB has no intention to act on behalf of the working class and sees itself as merely an instrument through which the workers will capture state power to abolish capitalism and install socialism. But after that the SPGB goes out of existence. It is, in fact, the only political party that paradoxically is working towards a situation in which it can abolish itself. There will be no need for an SPGB when we have socialism

Utter drivel. You keep asserting that the SPGB "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" but this is contradicted by the hostility cause! This is why you have the hostility clause - to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism!

Then finally there is your remark that "trying to draw a distinction between being a vanguard and being vanguardist is pathetic". Really? You yourself agree that the SPGB is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense so what, pray, is the non leninist version of vanguardism you have in mind? What does it consist in? A vanguard by definition is a small section of the population. I have no problem with this defintion or with seeing the SPGB as a vanguard in this sense. But what does it mean to be a vanguardist.

Now you're just playing silly buggers with semantics to find your way out.

The form of vanguardism you subscribe to is as has been laid out above - in your own comments. Yes this differs from Leninism - in as much as you obscure and deny this aspect of your politics, and in its crudeness - but just because an apple isn't an orange doesn't make it a pear.

You are still struggling to obscure and deny this - nobody means vanguard in the sense of a minority alone, but in the sense of a political vanguard; a political body that sees itself as the most enlightened section of the working class, that aspires to be the political representatives of their class.

Does it mean striving to act on behalf of, or represent, the majority while remaining a small minority. Well that doesnt fit the description of the SPGB does it now? Does it mean striving to ensure one remains forever a small minority whose thinking is more advanced that the rest of the population - a self perpetuating elite. Well that too does not fit the description of the SPGB since it clearly actively seeks membership growth and the propagation of its ideas. I agree its membership criteria might be a little too strict - I think its prohibition on religious ideas within the party, for example, is unnecessary and restrictive - but by and large it clearly wants workers to become members. It clearly wants to become a mass party

You'll be wanting a long time. You are clearly unable - or unwilling - to perceive of vanguardism in any other context than Leninism. Your loss, because you are failing to grasp what your party are all about.

See, the problem with critics of the SPGB like you, Louis and Butchers is that, when it comes down to it, all your critcisms amount to weasel words. You havent really worked out clearly what it is you object to about the SPGB which is why all you can do is chuck around a few rather vague and absract insults that indulge your sense of hostility (ironically, Ive seen more hostility from some of its critics than I have ever seen from the SPGB, notwithstanding the latters hostility clause). When pushed to explain yourself in simple concrete terms you are lost for words and seek refuge in banalities

You're the one chucking about 'vague and abstract insults' as the paragraph above clearly demonstrates - no substance to it whatsoever. The criticisms you have faced have been coherent and precise, albeit you have been unable to overcome then. Yet you are so clouded by blind loyalty you cannot see. You're not a socialist, you're a partisan and a sectarian. Your loyalty should lie with your politics and with your class interests, as should all socialists, not blindly tethered to one political body come what may. And you have the cheek to lecture others on 'what is socialism'! You don't have the first clue, and I suspect you never will.

 

[robbo203]

.
The evidence is the SPGB's own fucking hostility clause! The hostility clause states that you are hostile to all other organisations that are also political parties.

You're lying when you say the SPGB 'study what they stand for' - it may well be the case that the squeegees study retrospectively, but you are, and this is crucial Robbo, automatically hostile to any and every other political body.
.

Nope. The application of the "hostility clause comes from an understanding that the organisation in question stands for something other than socialism. You dont know what you are talking about here. You are just dreaming up a imaginary causal sequence of events which fits in with your preconceived notions. One thing the SPGB is very good at is explaining why it cannot support a given organisation and it always gives reasons for why it opposes political parties even those - like SPEW - that claim to stand for socialism

.
The Squeegees will hold discussions with anybody and everybody - they debated with the NF in 2006 I believe. That some squeegees have debated with some anarchists doesn't prove a lot. I should imagine a more truthful portrayal of the squeegees can be found in the reaction of its supporters - of which you are one, whether you pay subs or not - to anybody and everybody outside of their little bubble. .

You dont know much about the SPGB do you PT? And incidentally I find more hostility oozing from you than ever I do from the SPGB. You miss the point also which I picked up from Gravediggers - that the attitude of the SPGB is now thankfully markedly different to folk on more or less the same wavelength as it than it is to capitalist political parties . So it doesnt "debate against" the anarchist groups in question but shares a forum with them. A small thing maybe but deeply symbolic I suggest. I note also that it has made tentative moves in the direction of cooperative ventures with others in the "thin red line" of non market anti-statist socialism. Thats good and I applaud it

.
Utter drivel. You keep asserting that the SPGB "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" but this is contradicted by the hostility cause! This is why you have the hostility clause - to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism!.

This is incoherent. There is no logical connection between "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" and the application of the hostility clause. The hostility clause merely signifies political opposition to non socialist political parties. Thats all. Its got nothing to do with intending or not intending to "act on behalf of the working class". I think you have got somewhat carried away in your enthusiasm to vent your spleen and overlooked that that was referring to a quite different argument (about vanguardism)

I have no evidence whatsoever that the hostility clause is there "to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism". The acid test of this would be if another organisation came along that stood for exactly the same goal as the SPGB and advocated the same means of achieving it. Would the SPGB apply the hostility clause in that case? The historical evidence says no. If you have any contrary evidence lets hear it. Otherwise you are just talking through your hat - as usual.

.
Now you're just playing silly buggers with semantics to find your way out.

The form of vanguardism you subscribe to is as has been laid out above - in your own comments. Yes this differs from Leninism - in as much as you obscure and deny this aspect of your politics, and in its crudeness - but just because an apple isn't an orange doesn't make it a pear.

You are still struggling to obscure and deny this - nobody means vanguard in the sense of a minority alone, but in the sense of a political vanguard; a political body that sees itself as the most enlightened section of the working class, that aspires to be the political representatives of their class.!.

But that is precisely the point - the SPGB does NOT aspire to be the "political representative of their class". So finally after all this , having pushed and pushed you to provide me with a clear defintion of what you mean by a non leninist definition of vanguardism you come up with a ...leninist definition of vanguardism which you have agreed the SPGB does not confrom to!

See what I mean. At the end of the day you dont really have a clearly thought out critique of the SPGB at all. You are simply SPEWing out the same old visceral and dogmatic prejudice, imposing your own interpetation of what the organisation without having had any prior experience or knowlege of what you are talking about.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Nope. The application of the "hostility clause comes from an understanding that the organisation in question stands for something other than socialism. You dont know what you are talking about here. You are just dreaming up a imaginary causal sequence of events which fits in with your preconceived notions. One thing the SPGB is very good at is explaining why it cannot support a given organisation and it always gives reasons for why it opposes political parties even those - like SPEW - that claim to stand for socialism





You dont know much about the SPGB do you PT? And incidentally I find more hostility oozing from you than ever I do from the SPGB. You miss the point also which I picked up from Gravediggers - that the attitude of the SPGB is now thankfully markedly different to folk on more or less the same wavelength as it than it is to capitalist political parties . So it doesnt "debate against" the anarchist groups in question but shares a forum with them. A small thing maybe but deeply symbolic I suggest. I note also that it has made tentative moves in the direction of cooperative ventures with others in the "thin red line" of non market anti-statist socialism. Thats good and I applaud it




This is incoherent. There is no logical connection between "has no intention to act on behalf of the working class" and the application of the hostility clause. The hostility clause merely signifies political opposition to non socialist political parties. Thats all. Its got nothing to do with intending or not intending to "act on behalf of the working class". I think you have got somewhat carried away in your enthusiasm to vent your spleen and overlooked that that was referring to a quite different argument (about vanguardism)

I have no evidence whatsoever that the hostility clause is there "to maintain a monopoly as political representatives of your pure vision of socialism". The acid test of this would be if another organisation came along that stood for exactly the same goal as the SPGB and advocated the same means of achieving it. Would the SPGB apply the hostility clause in that case? The historical evidence says no. If you have any contrary evidence lets hear it. Otherwise you are just talking through your hat - as usual.





But that is precisely the point - the SPGB does NOT aspire to be the "political representative of their class". So finally after all this , having pushed and pushed you to provide me with a clear defintion of what you mean by a non leninist definition of vanguardism you come up with a ...leninist definition of vanguardism which you have agreed the SPGB does not confrom to!

See what I mean. At the end of the day you dont really have a clearly thought out critique of the SPGB at all. You are simply SPEWing out the same old visceral and dogmatic prejudice, imposing your own interpetation of what the organisation without having had any prior experience or knowlege of what you are talking about.

Fuck me, for a non-member you're a right partisan.

Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?

I don't know, so I'm out. You've convinced nobody btw.

 

[robbo203]

Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?.

Odd that. Cos thats exactly what I was thinking about you

 

[Gravediggers]

I think you're wasting your time with these people, Robbo. Whatever you say, they are only interested in coming back with their rebuttals. At least we offer a solution to the problems that capitalism throws up; perhaps we're wrong but what do they offer? Nothing but nitpicking criticisms. Perhaps they can tell us their ideas on making this world a better place to live in. Even if it's still within the confines of capitalism, let's hear about it.

Given that ProperTidy is refusing to reply to the questions I put to him in post number 1057 reproduced below, its pretty obvious that if he were to broaden the discussion along the lines implied below its very likely he would find himself in with even more mud on his face.

"I have answered your question by suggesting the western industrial countries as a region where a socialist revolution could be successful. What the fuck more do you want? Perhaps Outer Mongolia would fit your if's, buts, and maybes better?

What about the questions you have failed to answer: 1. If the workers were satisfied with state capitalism and refused to complete the revolutionary process what would be the response of SPEW? 2. Could you please identify/name a socialist party? 3. Provide the reasons why you think socialism will develop unevenly? (My emphasis). Is that enough for now or do you want me to do a search of this thread?

Once you have put your thinking cap on and start responding to the above questions I shall then reply to your posts,. Until then you can go and try bullying someone else on another thread, for I do not tolerate bullying in any shape or form."

 

[Tim19]

Fuck me, for a non-member you're a right partisan.

Robbo, what is the point in debating with somebody who will obscure the facts, fib, distort the words of others and purposefully fail to grasp any point which is uncomfortable?

I don't know, so I'm out. You've convinced nobody btw.

Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution. You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.

 

[JimW]

Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution. You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.

You signed up to say that? Oh aye

 

[two sheds]

You signed up to say that? Oh aye

Nah, he's a 'non-partisan', i'm convinced. ProperTidy i'm ashamed at you.

 

[Gravediggers]

If poverty isn't the cause of domestic violence what is?

The short answer to this question is that poverty is not the sole cause of domestic violence. Is it safe to arrive at such a conclusion when there are so many instances of domestic violence occurring against the backdrop of poverty? Yes it is safe to arrive at such a conclusion, and most certainly so because there is very strong evidence which suggests that domestic violence takes place in families where poverty is a non-issue, or even the cause for domestic violence to occur.

This is not to say that the fear of ending up in a state of poverty could be the spark which light the fuse for domestic violence to kick off in families where poverty is not an issue. And this is not as unproblematic has it may seem, for there is strong evidence which suggests that such cases can and do occur. But such cases or circumstances is not the issue here.

The ultimate litmus test would be to apply the question to a future socialist society where the issues and problems associated with poverty would no longer appertain. By socialism I mean a society where there is free access to the means of living, production for use, classless, moneyless and stateless. Is is safe then to say that domestic violence would still occur under such circumstances? The answer to this question would have to be a qualified yes.

So what are the causes for domestic violence if its not poverty? Firstly, there is no single cause for domestic violence, because its brought about by any number of multiple factors and none. This is not to say that poverty is not a contributory factor for in many instances it is. However, although poverty may be present there have to be other factors involved and in place before domestic violence will occur.

Family upbringing coinciding with a 'normalised behaviour pattern' is one factor that could be involved. There are also cultural factors to be taken on board where the norms and values of a particular society or locality include a variety of domestic violence as acceptable behaviour. Mental health issues and problems, along with substance abuse could also be a cause of domestic violence.

But what about a definition of "domestic violence" is it purely bloody noses, broken arms, rape, burns and scalding, mutilation, etc, we are talking about? Well no for the fact of the matter is there are many cases where actual violence, or even the threat of violence, does no even arise. For there are many incidents where domestic violence *only* takes the form of constant and persistent verbal abuse. Unfortunately, this form of domestic violence is prevalent throughout society and all societies, and can be committed by either spouse or partner.

Although we can envisage a decrease in 'violent' domestic violence occurring in a socialist society whether or not there would be a corresponding decrease in non-violent domestic violence occurring remains to be seen. For given the socialist framework mentioned above - and despite the tremendous advantages it offers to people to cop-out of domestic violence and abusive situations and circumstances - there are always going to be people who are willing to put up with the situation, come what may.

Any Questions?

 

[Gravediggers]

You signed up to say that? Oh aye

So? Are you saying he's not entitled to do so? I thought this thread is open to everybody? Or are you another Leninist who prefer their comfort zone to remain uncluttered with messages which support a valid criticism?

 

[JimW]

So? Are you saying he's not entitled to do so? I thought this thread is open to everybody? Or are you another Leninist who prefer their comfort zone to remain uncluttered with messages which support a valid criticism?

You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.

 

[Gravediggers]

You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.

Not quite I merely posed the inference I never actually made it. Now you have confirmed you are not a Leninist what are the reasons for your inference that Tim19 is seemingly poking his nose in where he's not wanted?

 

[JimW]

Fucking hell man, grind a light hearted bit of piss-taking into the ground why don't you? The answer's there in my previous if you care to look. Tim19 is of course free to post what s/he likes and tell me to piss off themselves. Is this your vanguardist tendency showing that you feel the need to speak on their behalf?

 

[Gravediggers]

Fucking hell man, grind a light hearted bit of piss-taking into the ground why don't you? The answer's there in my previous if you care to look. Tim19 is of course free to post what s/he likes and tell me to piss off themselves. Is this your vanguardist tendency showing that you feel the need to speak on their behalf?

Just demonstrating that we are all entitled to our democratic opinion and that's fuck all to do with vanguardism - just that it takes two to tango - as I will be demonstrating in my reply to Tim19 that is following shortly.

 

[Gravediggers]

Well, as a 'non-partisan', I've been reading this thread and have to say that this comment pretty well sums up your contribution. You have done nothing but misrepresent and distort the SPGB position and insult its defenders.

It would be interesting to know where your non-partisan view actually coincides with robbo and disagrees with ProperTidy?

 

[stethoscope]

You in a nutshell - I cast a mild aspersion on the likely non-partisan nature of someone who of all the thousand of threads on this site has signed up to support the SPGB, and you're off into a world of ridiculous inferences which true to form are entirely wrong. Well done that man.

 

[Tim19]

It would be interesting to know where your non-partisan view actually coincides with robbo and disagrees with ProperTidy?

I never suggested it does.

 

[butchersapron]

Simple language for robbo. Vanguardists. That's all you are. Coward leninists.

 

[two sheds]

As a random passer by just come in from the street and happening to read this thread over Sheds' shoulder, I'd just like to say what a stunning critique he's given of the socialist stance and it's a shame nobody has taken up his idea for the first step towards an ideal society.

Yours

A. Jackson

 

[JimW]

A lady's just looked in my window and commented that I'm possibly the most handsome, perspicacious and thoroughly decent person she's ever seen typing a reply to an Internet bulletin board.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

As a random passer by just come in from the street and happening to read this thread over Sheds' shoulder, I'd just like to say what a stunning critique he's given of the socialist stance and it's a shame nobody has taken up his idea for the first step towards an ideal society.

Yours

A. Jackson

 

[Tim19]

LOL.

 

[robbo203]

LOL

Getting catty are we now?

 

[butchersapron]

sexist

 

[TremulousTetra]

So, what is your coherent analysis as to "why the workers persistently support a system which is designed to exploit their labour power "? For example, why do something like a third of working class people people who vote, vote Tory?

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. This can raise some very real problems of a pretty fundamental character for vanguardists from the SWP and SPGB traditions (and obviously not just them).

Fortunately I don't want to re-enact either 1904 or 1917.

Louis MacNeice

So what's your answer to the question I posed to Louis Butch?

 

[robbo203]

sexist

Surely that should be specieist? Or is that a specious argument?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?

 

[Gravediggers]

I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?

It does, in a literal sense, but its application in a meaningful sense depends on what is the object of the vanguard.

If for example a group have an idea, notion, opinion or theory that they think needs the attention of the wider community, e.g. the possibility of climate change being caused by an increase in human activity. To support their theory they would accumulate evidence to that effect on the assumption the wider community would recognise the dangers for not cutting back on their activity by force of argument and weight of evidence and come to accept that something needs to be done. This is a minority 'vanguard idea' leading others to a con sensus view which reflects a majority opinion. This is perfectly acceptable behaviour and depends on the argument being approved through voluntary agreement and goes on all the time.

If on the other hand, for example a group seek to impose their idea, notion, opinion or theory through the use of lies, deceit, manipulation or dictatorship this is unacceptable behaviour and vanguardist.

Make your own mind up on which group the SPGB adhere to.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I thought vanguardist organisations are supposed to 'lead' others?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10682772&postcount=798

ie? The IWCA of which Butch Louis etc are 'supporters'?