SPGB

[Gravediggers]

I agree with that, actually.

Can we take that as confirmation you belong to some cult? Or perhaps its confirmation of your idiocy? Then again it maybe a very poor attempt to reaffirm that you are not as dumb has you look?

 

[YouSir]

that's complete utter excuse. There is probably more divisions and less of a generalised archetypal Marxist, it doesn't mean we can't discuss Marxism.

There is no excuse for not explaining what you as an individual anarchists stand for, and any element that you would suggest, IYO, all anarchists share in common. For example,,,,,,,,, I'm going to come back on Two Sheds.

No it's not, it's stating the obvious, you're arguing with a collection of individuals who, regardless of their mutual ideals, are still going to behave differently on a message board. If they won't give you the debate you want that's nothing to do with the ideology and everything to do with their personalities. Whether they're right or wrong to not deal with you as you'd want them to I've no idea, I'm not monitoring their posts, but it's still not a matter of politics.

As for me personally, I find the politics forums interesting but I hardly ever get involved because I don't see the point, plus I don't have the time or energy to get as riled up as a lot of the leading posters seem to. If you want my personal opinions on something though feel free to ask, if I'm at work and bored I'll probably answer. There y'go though, Urban Anarchists are all different, we've all got our own ways of being a bit shit, just like everyone else

 

[Gravediggers]

so go on, clarify. Be as honest as the SPGB, and explain your 'logic'. We will not hang all U75 anarchists by your words, we will accept for the purpose of a novel experience, debating anarchism, you speak only for yourself.


PS. Every single post I have made to this thread has been in the same vain. I have asked Louis, Random, Jim W, Butchers, Fred, Two Sheds etc questions not just on anarchism, but on their personal opinions, and not one of them has answered honestly.

I think you would be more likely to get a honest reply if you were to ask what they are logically against.

 

[scrappy1]

What utter fabricated nonsense, if it is indeed the case that, "Only people in cults agree with each other." how do you explain the fact that the greater majority agree the earth is round? Or that the moon does not consist of cheese. By your definition the greater majority belong to the cult of round earthers.

Reminds me of a Will Hay sketch:
Teacher: "Is the world round or flat?"
Pupil: "Round, sir!"
Teacher: "How do you know?"
Pupil: "All right, flat then!"

 

[two sheds]

fucking hell, credit to you.

Nah I was lying, sorry, I thought it was crap

I'm also not really an anarchist (like I said I'm more a environmentalist). I like the idea that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of society, and I tend to agree with the anarchist analyses of why we are where we are. Mind you, I also agree with the SPGB analyses of why we are where we are. Saying what's wrong with society is fairly easy, it's what people want to put in its place that I usually have problems with.

The first thread that came up on that search you did saying that nobody will debate anarchism on u75 actually has some interesting views on anarchism. Incidentally the thread title: 'Can someone explain anarchism to me (again)' does suggest that he's asked before and that people have tried to explain before but that he's just not understood and is having another go.

There indeed wasn't really a debate on that thread, but a couple of people who *do* say they are anarchists give some interesting links/views/quotes. I don't think anarchists actually have the same sort of debate you seem to hold in the SPGB when left to yourselves which seems to be along the lines of 'I'm glad you asked me that, comrade, because if they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the means of production?"

As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.

 

[robbo203]

As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.

So what type of society do you feel people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in, two sheds, and in what way does it differ from the SPGB's own ideas about a (socialist) society?

 

[TremulousTetra]

The other thing that intrigues me is the way U75 anarchists, collectively, behave like clams. Look at this thread for example. The SPGB have been absolutely battered, [mostly justified IMHO] from every political direction, and yet they have steadfastly attempted to engage in discussion of their politics. Like every other topic the U75 anarchists have laid in, unabel to keep their mouths shut, when discussing other people's ideas. But as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views, like clams their mouths snap shut. They "if you misunderstand butch, that's your fault. if Butch misunderstands you, that's your fault. And if he ask's you to clarify, your obligated, BUT if you ask him to clarify anarchism, he throws a hissy or stonewalls."

We anarchists don't actually agree on anything because agreeing with anyone on anything just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other.[/QUOTE] the first part of your statement is implicitly false. If it is true, it has to be false, because if "anarchists don't actually agree on anything", then there has to be anarchists who disagree with this statement. What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism. Lastly, in your very acknowledgement that U75 anarchists act collectively, "collectively, behave like clams. [.......] as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views, like clams their mouths snap shut.", you demonstrate that even the U75 anarchists have enough common ground, to act spontaneously collectively.

However that is by the by, because this statement "just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other." IS commonISH to virtually all the writings U75 anarchists, and most I have come across outside. It's this kind of Christian individualism attitude, that people can only come as individuals, by their own effort, on their own, to an anarchism,,,,, which needs some explaining. It seems to have no evidential or logical basis, yet it is so prevalent they must have some explanation.

 

[robbo203]

the first part of your statement is implicitly false. If it is true, it has to be false, because if "anarchists don't actually agree on anything", then there has to be anarchists who disagree with this statement. What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism. Lastly, in your very acknowledgement that U75 anarchists act collectively, "collectively, behave like clams. [.......] as soon as the conversation turns to the U75 anarchists views, like clams their mouths snap shut.", you demonstrate that even the U75 anarchists have enough common ground, to act spontaneously collectively.

However that is by the by, because this statement "just shows that you haven't thought it through for yourself. Only people in cults agree with each other." IS commonISH to virtually all the writings U75 anarchists, and most I have come across outside. It's this kind of Christian individualism attitude, that people can only come as individuals, by their own effort, on their own, to an anarchism,,,,, which needs some explaining. It seems to have no evidential or logical basis, yet it is so prevalent you must have some explanation.

Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is probably even more absurd and pointless than agreement for the sake of agreement

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think you would be more likely to get a honest reply if you were to ask what they are logically against.

True. That is the only way you will get an honest reply usually off the majority of U75 anarchists. Just boring mate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No it's not, it's stating the obvious, you're arguing with a collection of individuals who, regardless of their mutual ideals, are still going to behave differently on a message board. If they won't give you the debate you want that's nothing to do with the ideology and everything to do with their personalities. Whether they're right or wrong to not deal with you as you'd want them to I've no idea, I'm not monitoring their posts, but it's still not a matter of politics.

As for me personally, I find the politics forums interesting but I hardly ever get involved because I don't see the point, plus I don't have the time or energy to get as riled up as a lot of the leading posters seem to. If you want my personal opinions on something though feel free to ask, if I'm at work and bored I'll probably answer. There y'go though, Urban Anarchists are all different, we've all got our own ways of being a bit shit, just like everyone else

You didn'tn wait for me "to come back on Two Sheds." mate. As you see there, I have no disagreement with what you say above. in fact violent panda used to be quite like yourself.

PS. my motivation, boredom.

 

[Gravediggers]

What's more if we venture away from U75 anarchists to my website www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk, you will find anarchists who have no problem discussing anarchism.

Had a look and failed to find anything on anarchism, or anarchists, plenty on the SWP though.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nah I was lying, sorry, I thought it was crap

I'm also not really an anarchist (like I said I'm more a environmentalist).

Thank fuck for that! You had me changing my entire world view for a minute.

I like the idea that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of society, and I tend to agree with the anarchist analyses of why we are where we are. Mind you, I also agree with the SPGB analyses of why we are where we are. Saying what's wrong with society is fairly easy, it's what people want to put in its place that I usually have problems with.

BINGO!!! I am of exactly the same mind. ETA.... Ive always said on here, if I had a choice of social revolutions, I'd choose what I understand of the Anarchists route. To add to that, my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>

The first thread that came up on that search you did saying that nobody will debate anarchism on u75 actually has some interesting views on anarchism. Incidentally the thread title: 'Can someone explain anarchism to me (again)' does suggest that he's asked before and that people have tried to explain before but that he's just not understood and is having another go.

There indeed wasn't really a debate on that thread, but a couple of people who *do* say they are anarchists give some interesting links/views/quotes. I don't think anarchists actually have the same sort of debate you seem to hold in the SPGB when left to yourselves which seems to be along the lines of 'I'm glad you asked me that, comrade, because if they reject the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, how do they explain the working classes choosing to not to control of the means of production?"

LOL Im not a SPGB member.

The SPGB have been absolutely battered, [mostly justified IMHO] from every political direction, and yet they have steadfastly attempted to engage in discussion of their politics.

Got ya.

The link was to demonstrate, in five years there hasn't been anything like the 1400 post debate about the SPGB. In fact any discussion of anarchism rarely gets beyond a few posts. Considering number of anarchists there seems to be on this website, I find that fact intriguing, without explanation. I'm incurably curious, thats all.

As to your complaint that I've not answered questions on my personal opinions 'honestly' I've actually in a couple of places said how I feel we should approach the problems in society. I think my first step (that we try to find out what type of society people would be happiest and most fulfilled living in) was so far from the SPGB's own ideas that it is invisible because none of you came back on it.

I think you have me mixed up with somebody else. Don't worry, I don't usually catalogue of other people's viewpoints either.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Had a look and failed to find anything on anarchism, or anarchists, plenty on the SWP though.

you need to try harder, comrade.

 

[Gravediggers]

Thank fuck for that! You had me changing my entire world view for a minute.BINGO!!! I am of exactly the same mind. To add to that, my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>

LOL Im not a SPGB member. Got ya.

Now I'm intrigued that you have a problem with accepting or rejecting the SPGB? Frankly I'm baffled on trying to fathom the reason this is a problem. Would appreciate some clarity.

The link was to demonstrate, in five years there hasn't been anything like the 1400 post debate about the SPGB.

Which IME signifies that both the posters and the viewers are finding the SPGB case for socialism not only intriguing and entertaining but also worthy of closer examination.

 

[Gravediggers]

you need to try harder, comrade.

Will do and get back to a.s.a.p.

 

[Gravediggers]

Will do and get back to a.s.a.p.

Done still no luck. Clicked on several links and nothing on anarchism. Also tried using the search feature and all I had was blank pages.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Now I'm intrigued that you have a problem with accepting or rejecting the SPGB? Frankly I'm baffled on trying to fathom the reason this is a problem. Would appreciate some clarity.

I don't mate have a a problem with "accepting or rejecting the SPGB".
my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject. <That's fine. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>

Which IME signifies that both the posters and the viewers are finding the SPGB case for socialism not only intriguing and entertaining but also worthy of closer examination.

but your new to U75.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Done still no luck. Clicked on several links and nothing on anarchism. Also tried using the search feature and all I had was blank pages.

try chomsky http://resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl
However, the site is in a process of problem sorting. try here to,,,, wait a minute.

there you go http://www.radio-rouge.org/resistancemp3/ not perfect, but better.

oops. real probs sos. found such as;

Anarchy: Co-Operation Without Restraint
Noam Chomsky - Length: 51 minutes

Government of the Future
Noam Chomsky 1970 - Length: 54 minutes

but mp3 file link not working

 

[TremulousTetra]

have applied a temp fix.

Heres just one now working
http://www.radio-rouge.org/Users/resistancemp3/noamchomskyanarchy-co-operationwithoutrestraint.mp3
Anarchy: Co-Operation Without Restraint
Noam Chomsky - Length: 51 minutes

all the others should work too.

 

[Gravediggers]

I don't mate have a a problem with "accepting or rejecting the SPGB".
my problem is, at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it, you can accept or reject. <That's fine. With the U75anarchists, it's like getting on a coach where the driver has an idea where you're going, anarchism, but has no directions, map, clue HOW to get there. Or do they? Who knows, because>

OK then the problem is I take it to be, ".... .... at least with the SPGB, they have an idea of what they are trying to achieve, and how they want to achieve it,". Would appreciate some clarity on how for you this is a problem.

 

[Gravediggers]

try chomsky http://resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl
However, the site is in a process of problem sorting. try here to,,,, wait a minute.

there you go http://www.radio-rouge.org/resistancemp3/ not perfect, but better.

oops. real probs sos. found such as;

Anarchy: Co-Operation Without Restraint
Noam Chomsky - Length: 51 minutes

Government of the Future
Noam Chomsky 1970 - Length: 54 minutes

but mp3 file link not working

Yeh so I found out, but eventually managed to get through.

 

[JimN]

Hi folks,

Since we seem to have entered the eye of the storm on this discussion I thought it might be a good time to post a snippet from the SPGB website on what we mean by socialism:

What is Socialism?

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

 

[Gravediggers]

Hi folks,

Since we seem to have entered the eye of the storm on this discussion I thought it might be a good time to post a snippet from the SPGB website on what we mean by socialism:

About time something like this brief outline was posted and not just to illustrate how our ideas are in the vanguard of describing the revolutionary changes in the social relationships. For it also illustrates that the SPGB can not be described as a vanguardist political party out to dictate the terms which reflect a ruling minority. If this was indeed the case the passage quoted below would be worded very differently to the idea it sets out to convey, for what this passage proposes is a non-hierarchical society where the decisions and responsibilities for production for use are taken by the whole of society rather than a leadership who by definition would constitute a minority ruling class.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

 

[FreddyB]

About time something like this brief outline was posted and not just to illustrate how our ideas are in the vanguard of describing the revolutionary changes in the social relationships. For it also illustrates that the SPGB can not be described as a vanguardist political party out to dictate the terms which reflect a ruling minority. If this was indeed the case the passage quoted below would be worded very differently to the idea it sets out to convey, for what this passage proposes is a non-hierarchical society where the decisions and responsibilities for production for use are taken by the whole of society rather than a leadership who by definition would constitute a minority ruling class.

It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.

 

[robbo203]

It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.

So basically what you are saying is that we are stuck with capitalism and have to accept this but cannot provide any convicing reason as to why we should just accept it other than to resort a somewhat smug ad hominen

 

[butchersapron]

What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.

Eh?

 

[FreddyB]

So basically what you are saying is that we are stuck with capitalism and have to accept this but cannot provide any convicing reason as to why we should just accept it other than to resort a somewhat smug ad hominen

No. Where have a I said that? I'm saying that the quote is completely and utterly disconnected from the here and the now and you might just as well claim that you want us to live in a harmony with the tigers for all the point there is to saying it. It's useless

 

[Gravediggers]

Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.

Eh?

He's done it yet again. Your claims that the SPGB are a vanguardist party have no foundation whatsoever until you provide a definition of vanguardism. Until then it is expected of you to continue to pathetically attempt to rationalise the irrational. You continue to be unscientific by making your assumption a foregone conclusion in the absence of evidence to illustrate your claim is a fact and not a fantasy, or even worst the behaviour of a person, or persons who are in denial.

Indeed, your whole claim is based on the assertion that the SPGB are in denial that they are a vanguardist party. Therefore, to prove this claim the onus is on you to provide a definition which substantiates such accusations.

 

[Gravediggers]

It reminds me of those watchtower magazines the jehovas have. The ones with pictures of kids hugging tigers. They share the same relevance to day to day life.

Do we take this as confirmation that you see no prospect of a society without leaders or rulers? If so say so.

 

[butchersapron]

Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational.




He's done it yet again. Your claims that the SPGB are a vanguardist party have no foundation whatsoever until you provide a definition of vanguardism. Until then it is expected of you to continue to pathetically attempt to rationalise the irrational. You continue to be unscientific by making your assumption a foregone conclusion in the absence of evidence to illustrate your claim is a fact and not a fantasy, or even worst the behaviour of a person, or persons who are in denial.

Indeed, your whole claim is based on the assertion that the SPGB are in denial that they are a vanguardist party. Therefore, to prove this claim the onus is on you to provide a definition which substantiates such accusations.

The return of the oppressed - what's that go to do with my post?

Wait till i show you that you're a classic reformist party next week.