Helloooo Butchers are you there? If you dont respond soon Im gonna pack it in for the night. Wage slavery beckons in the morning and I need my kip
SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
Helloooo Butchers are you there? If you dont respond soon Im gonna pack it in for the night. Wage slavery beckons in the morning and I need my kip
Its beginning to look that way...
Gravediggers
New Member
Does this mean that blind assertions are your stock in trade? Or have you stopped wearing your glasses?
The vagueness to which the SPGB are accused of is allowing such ambiguity & misinterpretation. To my mind -any- individual, or group - with an idea that is controversial and is in a minority can be accused of a 'vanguard' or vanguardist by the SPGB detractors on urban75. This really detracts from what a vanguard means. I've got a suspicion that these allegations are motivated by people who have got an axe to grind - it's called deflection. I experience it in my everyday work - if somebody accused of something they immediately accuse others of being worse than they are, finger pointing s a good way of getting out of it, at least for now. Hence Butchers an Louis d are so focused on calling the SPGB vanguardist! That's my take on it anyway, for me it points to the shallowness of the BT & L's argument.
Yes, there is a precise defintion of vanguardism which I supplied in an earlier post which entails, as I said, some smaller group seeking to act on behalf of some larger group by capturing political power for that purpose. This is the Leninist view of revolution - the majority cannot emancipate themselves by themselves and need to be emancipated by the vanguard from a position of political power.
This is certainly not the view of the SPGB so I am genuinely intrigued as to how the label "vanguardist" can be attached to the SPGB by several of its detractors on this list. I agree the SPGB can be called a "vanguard" in the descriptive sense of a small minority holding a set of views that might be considered "advanced". But being a vanguard is not the same thing as being a vanguardist - a point I was trying to explain to Proper Tidy before he went off in a huff to sulk and lick his wounds.
Being a vanguardist cannot possibly amount to just being a small minority that insistently puts across a set of ideas it believes to be correct and preferable to any others in the political market place. That is an absurd definition. Its scope is so wide as to make it quite meaningless
Butchers claims he has good grounds for calling the SPGB vanguardist. I would genuinely like to look at his argument in more detail but as yet he has not been particularly forthcoming in explaining himself. Which is a pity because this could turn out to be a very interesting and useful discussion.
whichfinder
New Member
They haven't "explained" and thats precisely the problem! Assertion is not explanation. I would like to see what their explanation actually is and if you know what it is perhaps you might care to share it with the rest of us. Then we can consider whether this explanation is valid
It would be interesting if these people would give their reasons for considering the SPGB vanguardist. Not only that, but, in the event of agreeing with them, where do I go next? OK, I'd leave the SPGB, but which other, non-vanguardist, organisation do I join?
If, as they say, they've given their reasons, it would be a simple task to cut-and-paste their arguments to settle this once and for all. It will need to be something more than how they think we hold our views (arrogantly, smugly, self-righteously etc.).
Yes exactly. Smugness, arrogance and self righteous , while not being particularly attractive qualities, do not constitute vanguardism. Vanguardism is a political theory, a theory about political action, and it is not even the same thing as elitism which is another thing the SPGB has been accused of (wrongly in my view). Which is why I think it needs to be explained in more detail in what sense these detractors consider the SPGB to be "vanguardist". Frankly Im baffled.
Gravediggers
New Member
Well frankly I'm not baffled, but rather delighted that the main protagonists on this thread have been shown for what they are - political bluffers - who are determined to be a disservice to their class and class interests. They all admitted supporting the enemy of the workers despite their miserable attempts of projecting themselves as class warriors.
ProperTidy fell on his own petard of supporting state capitalism, and by voting for Plaid and also for accepting the SPGB definition of socialism; butcherapron seemingly strangled himself with a lack of explanation for the accusation of the SPGB being vanguardist, and also being a member IWCA; whilst Louis Mcneice was exposed for being a member of IWCA and for supporting the Greens and convincingly showed her seemingly non-partisan contributions to trite and lacking political integrity.
Have we seen the last of these apologists for capitalism? I doubt it for their only mission in life is to try and deny their class any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails. For what they fear is the time when the working class start thinking for themselves so they become a class for itself. When that day arrives their ilk will either slink in to the shadows or crawl under the nearest rock in an effort to escape the wrath of the workers.
They have had a taste of it here but this is nothing to what they can expect on the day of reckoning.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Declaring yourselves the winners of the argument. Bless.
Not that it matters tuppence one way or the other as you're just going to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to - which makes your "any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails" particularly prize. Though if capital could be bored to death you might have some use.
Not that it matters tuppence one way or the other as you're just going to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to - which makes your "any inkling of what self-emancipation really entails" particularly prize. Though if capital could be bored to death you might have some use.
Gravediggers
New Member
I did not declare ourselves winners, not by a long shot, for I did say they would be back. And what makes you imply a member of the working class, or the capitalist class for that matter, can cop-out of the class war? For I take it that is behind your reasoning for saying, ".... .... to sit on the sidelines blathering while the rest of us fight the class war because we have to ... ... "?
Indeed we have to participate in the class war whether we like it or not, but the point at issue for the SPGB is how that participation actually takes place. Do we participate in class struggle on our masters terms or do we participate under our own terms? For us it is self defeating to use their language, their tactics, their methods, their hierarchy, their deceit, lies, manipulation, postures, slogans, etc, etc. For the working class revolution is going to be different to all past revolutions and we have no intention of cowtowing to our masters voice.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Utter semantic bollocks. I'm also not licking my wounds - I know you can't all really be so lacking in awareness that you think your debates on here have gone well for you. I've just got to the point of almost everybody else in realising that trying to debate with squeegees is as pointless as debating with Jehovas. In fact, I got to that point about twenty pages ago, and now just dip my toes now and again to point out that you are all bearded cultists pursuing a futile intellectual and abstract utopian dream whilst doing absolutely fuck all to bring about socialism or improve the lot of working people. You're more like dungeons and dragons aficionados, dreaming of a fantasy world, than you ever will be a working class political body.
My first post on this thread set out my criticisms and you are still yet to overcome them. Your whole operation on these 'debates' is to deflect criticism by attacking, well, everybody as reformists and drive serious debate away by repeating the same inflexible arguments verbatim until everybody else gets bored, then claim this is some sort of victory of ideas.
That you all feel the need to flood these threads with a succession of new posters who also happen, coincidentally, to be squeegees says it all. Do you see any other party, organisation, tradition etc using such pathetic tactics? No, you don't. It is also telling that about a third of your total membership has cropped up on this thread; that a supposedly serious political organisation sees posting on u75 as a critical priority is sad beyond belief.
The fact is you don't matter. You don't matter to socialists and you are a complete irrelevance to the labour movement and the working class. My only concern is that the squeegees may now and again suck in the odd good young socialist, thereby wasting a potentially good young activist by introducing him/her to puritanical dogma that decrees socialism will just happen; not as the result of struggle; no interim period in which the power and influence of the capitalist class - those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - can be neutralised; just spontaneously. Fortunately, the vast majority of socialists will have a strong antipathy towards any organisation that is as elitist and po-faced enough to make potential recruits sit a fucking entrance exam in dogma.
You're like a joke without a punchline.
Gravediggers
New Member
See I told you they would be back just can't resist ignoring the fact their questions have been answered on every occasion. Yet insist on ignoring the questions posed to them. ProperTidy is a Proper BULLY
Proper Tidy
Arsed
You're just a proper pompous and self-aggrandising old fool, GD.
I'm suprised by that post.
And i disagree with it.
Although,i need to add,
Until recently i have never,
Been aware of this Poster.
Another change of name ?
JimN
freetimes3x
In fairness Proper Tidy, I think it would be reasonable to expect that if you start a thread entitled The Socialist Party of Great Britain on a popular discussion forum you will have a few members of that party contributing to the discussion.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
What did I tells ya. Knew he'd fuck off. Always does.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Proof in the pudding...?
Gravediggers
New Member
I think it was twosheds who asked me when the SPGB became interested in ecology/environmental issues, and I said from September 1904. And further I would check it out when in London last weekend. I checked it out and there was a reference to ecology/environment if the first issue of the Socialist Standard in September 1904. It was in reference to how the conditions of the working class in 1904 had changed little, if any, from the time when Engles had described them in his book, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England'.
There is no further reference on ecology/environment until 1907 in reply to Malthus and population. The ecology/environment articles continue in this vein all the way to 1972 when they start commenting on the broader issues of ecology/environment. Now hardly a month goes past when the Socialist Standard fails to make some comment on the environment. And so it should.
There is no further reference on ecology/environment until 1907 in reply to Malthus and population. The ecology/environment articles continue in this vein all the way to 1972 when they start commenting on the broader issues of ecology/environment. Now hardly a month goes past when the Socialist Standard fails to make some comment on the environment. And so it should.
whichfinder
New Member
Talking about the Socialist Standard here is the June 2010 edition
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html
Whats this I hear about the SPGB annual conference approving a motion along the lines that the struggle for socialism has an "ethical dimension" or something like that. Can any SPGB comrades fill me in with the details? It certainly sounds like a promising move away from a somewhat over-economistic approach in my view. Cheers
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
*weeps*
Gravediggers
New Member
Yes we've had a vote on: Socialism is both scientific and ethical. The result of the resolution will be announced on Saturday after the EC meeting.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
*laughs*
May I offer my general view on this thread and the opposing arguments? My perspective on all this is from the point of view of a capitalist. I am a business owner. I employ people. So, why am I interested in socialism?
Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years. So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position. Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability. I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread. Coincidences happen.
If my employees started asking me for higher wages and threatened to go on strike, I would be worried. But I would only be worried within the framework of capitalism, if that makes any sense, within the context of the social relationship of employer and employee. OK, if I can't afford to pay higher wages, I just find new employees.
But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth. The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear. That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.
However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.
But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this. The strategy he outlines has been tried before. OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism. By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.
So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.
Well, my background is working class, and I was exposed to left-wing ideas and trade unionism in my formative years. So, I am a broad sympathiser with the socialist movement - admittedly, perhaps for emotional reasons partly, but I think mainly it's a rational position. Capitalism was once a progressive system, but it is now looking increasingly outdated and does not appear to provide a mechanism for resolving some of the most pressing issues facing us - such as mass starvation, possible nuclear annihilation and environmental sustainability. I was looking for some discussion and I happened on this thread. Coincidences happen.
If my employees started asking me for higher wages and threatened to go on strike, I would be worried. But I would only be worried within the framework of capitalism, if that makes any sense, within the context of the social relationship of employer and employee. OK, if I can't afford to pay higher wages, I just find new employees.
But if my employees started campaigning for, not higher wages, but the abolition of the wages system...well....It seems to me that the SPGB are a vanguard, but only a vanguard of the truth. The problem the SPGB has - and I see this was mentioned earlier in the thread by TomR77 - is that in telling the truth, they are telling people something they do not wish to hear. That partly explains their lack of success in generating a significantly larger membership.
However, I can see Proper Tidy's point, and I think perhaps GD and Robbo and other SPGB'ers need to pay more heed to it. What Proper Tidy is saying is that by campaigning for both achievable improvements and reforms, and for 'transitional demands' which would weaken capitalism, this would demonstrate to workers their potential as a cohesive group and gradually encourage the development of their consciousness as a class and understanding of the socialist case. This makes sense, perhaps more sense than simply believing you can persuade people of an abstract case.
But, the problem with Proper Tidy's position remains this. The strategy he outlines has been tried before. OK, not in the same way, but in a similar enough way to raise legitimate scepticism. By campaigning within capitalism, you risk becoming a radical capitalist movement rather than a socialist movement.
So, who do I side with? I happen to think the two positions are, to a large extent, complementary. I don't think it's necessary to be one or the other. It's a shame there isn't more unity among socialists/the Left. That would worry people like me more than this endless bickering over details.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Lol ...is that how they say it...lol?
Similar threads
