SPGB

[butchersapron]

You might do well to take a few lessons off them, yes, i agree.

 

[Gravediggers]

GD. In the absence of political alternatives, I am entitled to vote for who I perceive to be the least worst option. It has bugger all to do with either 'my political understanding of my class position' or regional/national officers in SP. It has everything to do with who I would prefer out of the limited options as my MP.

I know you reject the real world so it must be a confusing scenario for you.

Perhaps you can explain, through the shining light of your exemplary political understanding of your class position, why you have flip-flopped from nationalists to reformists to cult, and how you saw the light.

So you voted for the least worse of four evils. I therefore beg to differ that it has nothing to do with your political understanding of your class position. By voting for the enemy e.g. the representative of the welsh capitalist class it illustrates you have a total lack of understanding of where your working class interests lie, or even what they are.

Here you are posturing that reforms and transitional demands are the way forward for the working class yet blatantly urge all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW.

 

[dannysp]

Ho ho ho

That's done it, such a withering critique has completely changed my mind, I've undergone a veritable epiphany and had a eureka moment. Look could you send an application form to 52 Clapham High St SW4 7UN, I'll pick it up when I go to hand in my resignation, thanks.
D'you think they'll let me join? I'll swear Trotsky is God.

 

[dannysp]

You might do well to take a few lessons off them, yes, i agree.

And what would those "lessons" consist of butch?

 

[Proper Tidy]

So you voted for the least worse of four evils. I therefore beg to differ that it has nothing to do with your political understanding of your class position. By voting for the enemy e.g. the representative of the welsh capitalist class it illustrates you have a total lack of understanding of where your working class interests lie, or even what they are.

Here you are posturing that reforms and transitional demands are the way forward for the working class yet blatantly urge all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW.

You're on a different fucking planet man.

What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.

It doesn't indicate anything more than a choice between the options available to me.

You appear to see something noble is your abstentionist approach. But here's the thing - it means a big fat fuck all.

If you can find me "blatantly urg(ing) all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW" the you're a fucking magician. I have not encouraged anybody to vote Plaid, why the fuck would I?

Or do you think all good socialists should abstain from voting when they don't have a candidate to vote for? What, for example, would be the SPGB line if it was a choice between a Labour politician and a BNP politician? 'Stay at home, it isn't important'?

I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.

 

[butchersapron]

And what would those "lessons" consist of butch?

One would be how to attract people.

What was your name on the ballot paper then if it was a SPGB vote?

 

[Gravediggers]

You're on a different fucking planet man.

What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.

It doesn't indicate anything more than a choice between the options available to me.

You appear to see something noble is your abstentionist approach. But here's the thing - it means a big fat fuck all.

If you can find me "blatantly urg(ing) all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW" the you're a fucking magician. I have not encouraged anybody to vote Plaid, why the fuck would I?

Or do you think all good socialists should abstain from voting when they don't have a candidate to vote for? What, for example, would be the SPGB line if it was a choice between a Labour politician and a BNP politician? 'Stay at home, it isn't important'?

I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.

I do not have to put any spin on this feeble excuse what so ever. You have done a perfectly good job as it stands. And you claim you live in the world of reality.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I do not have to put any spin on this feeble excuse what so ever. You have done a perfectly good job as it stands. And you claim you live in the world of reality.

I'm not excusing anything you pompous prick. I have nothing I need to offer an excuse for.

 

[dannysp]

One would be how to attract people.

What was your name on the ballot paper then if it was a SPGB vote?

The BNP are repellent n'est pas, and yes a name, "a rose or turd by any other would smell as sweet or as fowl"

 

[TomR77]

"I am a lifelong, strong atheist, but even from this standpoint, I must acknowledge that belief in god is perfectly rational in certain circumstances. Even a person who believes in a god could also - just about - be a socialist. Each position isn't necessarily contradictory to the other".

"Of course, as an atheist, I happen to think that religious beliefs are silly".

How can something be rational in one paragraph and then silly in another?
What are these circumstamces?

You've taken my words slightly out of context; always the danger when quoting selectively. Maybe also, I didn't convey my meaning very well. I don't want to get sidetracked in a debate about god (I find it a pretty dull subject), but objectively, I cannot disprove the existence of any god, and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position. It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers.

I happen to think that the majority of religious and spiritual beliefs are inconsistent with the pattern of our existence. The body of scientific evidence and inquiry points to a material reality only, but I don't see this as a basis for excluding from the socialist movement those who choose a faith. Let them join. Socialism is a scientific case, but there are plenty of scientists and other inquiring intellectuals who hold religious faith.

 

[butchersapron]

The BNP are repellent n'est pas, and yes a name, "a rose or turd by any other would smell as sweet or as fowl"

So it was you they voted for. Or didn't.

 

[Gravediggers]

I'm not excusing anything you pompous prick. I have nothing I need to offer an excuse for.

Away you go nothing left in the bag of tricks except insults I presume. Must be because truth hurts even when a 'feeble reason' fails the scrutiny of defining the class enemy.

OK save your breath. Could you explain what you understand to be a socialist commitment, a socialist determination, and a socialist non-compromise?

 

[TomR77]

You're on a different fucking planet man.

What has you not voting achieved? I'd have preferred a Plaid MP than a Labour MP on the basis that a Plaid MP is likely to be opposed to the cuts that are coming and to continued imperial adventures. So I voted Plaid.

It doesn't indicate anything more than a choice between the options available to me.

You appear to see something noble is your abstentionist approach. But here's the thing - it means a big fat fuck all.

If you can find me "blatantly urg(ing) all and sundry to vote blindly without a thought on how this reflects on the case promoted by SPEW" the you're a fucking magician. I have not encouraged anybody to vote Plaid, why the fuck would I?

Or do you think all good socialists should abstain from voting when they don't have a candidate to vote for? What, for example, would be the SPGB line if it was a choice between a Labour politician and a BNP politician? 'Stay at home, it isn't important'?

I voted for the candidate least likely to fuck me up the arse and charge me for it - because I don't live on a cloud stroking my beard. Spin that however you like.

It's a small step from there to voting Labour, LibDem...or may God forgive us...the Tories. Yes, you could vote Tory on this basis. Why not? If you apply the logic of the argument, there's nothing against it. The Conservative Party has, essentially, been a liberal/centre-left party for the past 50 years anyway (including under Thatcher). And didn't Plaid try to enter a coalition with them in Wales?

On Plaid specifically, they are nominally a left-wing party, but they also have this ideological confusionism that other Celtic nationalist parties have in that there is this very strong nationalist/home language constituency. You see this also in Sinn Fein (Ireland) and the SNP (Scotland), both of which are nominally centre-left or left-wing, but which also have some very right-wing and conservative factions who are basically silenced or appeased by the nationalistic mission of their parties' leaderships.

The problem with Proper Tidy's whole gambit here is that he is entering the capitalist arena, and having to mediate all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the parties. One has to ask the obvious and glaring question - Why? Vote Plaid, he is saying, but why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?

 

[robbo203]

And that goal has to harmonise with the means. When it don't the goal is inevitably going down the plughole.


.

You are confusing two things. Yes, the goal needs to harmonise with the means - although harmonisation is a relative term here. Im no fan of the Socialist Studies group and no doubt the level of democracy practiced within it falls short of what is required in a socialist party (although I very much doubt you can say that they are therefore a completely undemocratic organisation). However, their goal is still exactly the same as that of the SPGB and this is the point. It may be that that goal is unachievable (by them) but saying some thing is unachievable does not mean it is not in the interest of workers to achieve it

Again you are refusing to answer my question on why should the majority give way to the minority? OK that being the case let me expand it a bit to open up the discussion. The SPGB are exactly in this position of trying to convince the majority of their view that capitalism is not in the interests of majority. We do this by putting our case through the political process where we promote the case at every opportunity. And as you well know we are quite willing to discuss with individuals and organisations on how we can promote the case so it represents a more vigorous and modernised approach to the pursuit of class struggle.

This being the case, and in relevance to your argument on allowing membership to those of religious beliefs, you would expect them to take up these options: 1. To apply for membership and keep their religious beliefs under wraps; or 2. To consistently apply for membership but openly declare their religious beliefs in the knowledge they are going to be turned down but nevertheless determined to on keep hammering at the door; or 3. Attend Branch meetings and vigorously put their case by example that they are indeed socialists by participating in party activity. None of this has happened to my knowledge. So if not why not? I can only assume they aren't committed and determined socialists in the first place..

Well come on GD this is not really the case at all and you must know it. But first to answer your rather odd assertion that "Again you are refusing to answer my question on why should the majority give way to the minority? What exactly do you mean by this?

Look, when I was in the SPGB and putting forward the views I have put forward here I was fully aware that I was in a distinct minority. I was not trying to persuade the majority to "give way" to the minority in this sense -that is to call for a situation in which the views of the minority prevailed over those the majority. This is what you seem to be literally suggesting here which is utterly ludicrous. What I was endeavouring to do (as where a few other comrades( was to persuade the majority to change their minds on the matter so that what was a minority would become a majority. There is a big difference you know. I fully accept that the majority are in favour of the ban on religious beliefs but I dont agree with such a ban and therefore the only option for me was to leave the party unfortunately. There is nothing "undemocratic" about this if that is what you were suggesting. In fact it would be undemocratic and hyprocritical of me to have remained a member under the circumstances. This doesnt mean I am not still highly sympathetic to the SPGB. I am and dare I say it, have probably done more as a non member to promote the SPGB than most members in the SPGB itself.

Now as to your suggested range of options I "expect" applicants to take up, I certainly do not advocate the dishonest concealment of one's religious views (1) under the present arrangement nor persistently applying for membership knowing one will be turned down (2) in the hope that by constantly hammering away the door might be opened. That would be pointless. (3) is an option that some religous symapthisers of the party have taken up contrary to what you claim. I knew one such individual in my own branch who helped out but was not a member and there were others too. There is a guy in New Zealand I know of who contributes hugely to the WSPNZ but has religious views and therefore is not a member

But your mistake is to assume that because someone does not participate in party activity that means "they aren't committed and determined socialists in the first place". With respect, dont you think that is being just a wee bit arrogant to imagine that the only socialists around are members or supporters of the SPGB. It incidentally flatly contradicts your earlier state position that the SPGB has modified the application of its hostility clause and now cosily engages in forums with likeminded people rather than hostile debate.

I would suggest that the vast majority of religious sympathisers upon hearing about the religious ban tend to move away from the SPGB altogther in disappointment. You just dont hear about them any more. I wouldnt be surprised if the figure is far higher than either of us imagine. True some persist hoping that they might be accepted as members but as the EC minutes reveal from time to time their applications are routinely turned down. This does not mean they are no longer interested in socialism and that is the point. I know somew of these people and I know full well that they remain committed socialists even if they do not make themselves known to the party

Granted you are not being unreasonable in respect of putting your argument forward. However, you are being unreasonable in respect of your unwillingness to accept a "quiet revolution" needs time to settle into place so SPGB members are comfortable with the changed circumstances.

Well according to you this "quiet revolution" has already taken place but if you dont mind me saying so GD why, in that case , your overly hostile demeanour? I mean jeez - Im actually a sympathiser of the SPGB after all! Gawd knows what sort of treatment an opponent can expect to receive. Here I am bigging up the organisation and saying its got an awful lot to offer and that people shouldnt just brush it aside in the way they do. Of course I had to explain why I am not a member - that I have certain differences but rather than just "agree to differ" you saw this as a reason to tear into me with your "On yer bike" jibes and the like. You are not doing the SPGB any favours GD by such an aggressive approach but I know the organisation well enough to realise that its not a reflection on everyone. Just cool it, man. Take the advice you so wisely gave Butchersapron

 

[TomR77]

Just following on from that last post, why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?

Proper Tidy and Butchersapron will now leap in and say that voting for socialism is either not possible at present, or would be a futile gesture, and we should accept this. Rather than aiming for objectives we would want idealistically, they will say, we should accept that there is a limit to what can be achieved realistically in society, and so we should hunker down for a struggle under capitalism in the hope that this will eventually lead to mass socialist consciousness.

Fair enough. I accept the validity in this argument. However, at the risk of being branded a "pompous prick", I do not accept that this means we should limit our political choices. Voting Plaid Cymru is a barmy thing for a socialist to do. If SPEW or SPGB or something similar are not standing candidates in your area, then vote for yourself by writing 'Socialism' on the ballot paper.

And as for the benefits which the working class might derive from voting Plaid Cymru, well as an Impossibilist I would reject any premise that the workers would derive any benefit from improving the conditions of their own exploitation. I do so on perfectly reasonable and logical grounds. I was actually too magnanimous with GD earlier, on the other thread. I would not vote for health and safety legislation. The working class should be voting for socialism. Period.

But here my attention turns again to Proper Tidy. He told us previously that the struggle was from below, and not necessarily political. How does this square with his admission that he has voted Plaid? We have turned full-circle and I can only repeat the assertion that I have made all along. While not necessarily opposed to reforms per se, I do not see the advantage to the working class in voting to continue the system that exploits them. People such as Proper Tidy can make the system nicer and show the working class what they can achieve in practical terms, but that will only lead to socialism where there is a socialist majority - and such a majority will not want or need Proper Tidy's help, or ours.

If we want socialism, then we need to persuade workers of the socialist case, in the same way that each of us has been persuaded of the socialist case. It's that clear and simple. The way forward, I think, is to reform the S.P.G.B. internally so that it ditches some of its sectarianism, and improves its relations with the rest of the anti-state sector, and professionalises its organisation, media relations and campaigning.

 

[robbo203]

You would do well to read what I've already written more than once on this here forum.

Increases to the minimum wage and raising pensions and trying them back into income are not transitional demands. They are just demands.

Perhaps you should do a little reading up and then come back, so that we're both signing off the same hymn sheet, comrade.

I tell you what - just to make things easier ,can you give a succinct defintion of a transntional demand and a practical example. I have yet to see how it can be differentiated in any meangful way from straightforwad reformism. And reformism, as we know, accepts capitalism as the basic framework within which reformist measures are carried out by the state

 

[TomR77]

Here we go, workers self-management again.....Just you watch....

"Ah, Mr. Tidy. Yes, yes, do come in. Take a seat in the boardroom, why don't you. Now, you and those other chaps have been agitating for...er...what was it this time? Workers self-management? Yes, jolly good. Well, we've been looking into this and we'd be delighted to accede to your demands. Delighted, delighted. Care for a glass of cherry?"

Maybe it will be something else....but whatever it is, I guarantee the capitalists will be more than delighted - delighted - to accede to Mr. Tidy's demands.

Up the workers!

Or maybe not...

 

[Gravediggers]

And as for the benefits which the working class might derive from voting Plaid Cymru, well as an Impossibilist I would reject any premise that the workers would derive any benefit from improving the conditions of their own exploitation. I do so on perfectly reasonable and logical grounds. I was actually too magnanimous with GD earlier, on the other thread. I would not vote for health and safety legislation. The working class should be voting for socialism. Period.

I did not imply or suggest socialist should vote for H&S legislation. What I said was workers would "welcome" such legislation despite the fact there were benefits to the capitalist class. A tad pragmatic I agree but nonetheless a recognition that we can only expect crumbs from reforms when our aspirations and expectations are set so low.

If we want socialism, then we need to persuade workers of the socialist case, in the same way that each of us has been persuaded of the socialist case. It's that clear and simple. The way forward, I think, is to reform the S.P.G.B. internally so that it ditches some of its sectarianism, and improves its relations with the rest of the anti-state sector, and professionalises its organisation, media relations and campaigning.

I tend to agree with you here, albeit without the reference to sectarianism, but as always I ask the inevitable question: Please feel free to elaborate on your suggestions for improvements, either here or if you so wish, or by making use of the Personal Messages on this board.

 

[TomR77]

I did not imply or suggest socialist should vote for H&S legislation. What I said was workers would "welcome" such legislation despite the fact there were benefits to the capitalist class. A tad pragmatic I agree but nonetheless a recognition that we can only expect crumbs from reforms when our aspirations and expectations are set so low.

No problem - I think it's my fault in getting the semantics wrong of 'support', 'campaign for', 'vote for', and so on. It's half-11 on a Sunday night, so I'm sure you'll let me off on that one. At this time of night, I can barely spell semantics, let alone type it - and I've work in the morning, so I'd better hit the sack! Hope to debate with you again maybe later in the week.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It's like arguing with five gibbering drunks, it really is. Do you people not ever read back what you've written? Dear fucks.

A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safeguards the environment.

Or

Repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties. For the right to protest! End Police harassment.

Spot the difference.

Here's a clue - one is achievable under capitalism, the other isn't.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It's a small step from there to voting Labour, LibDem...or may God forgive us...the Tories. Yes, you could vote Tory on this basis. Why not? If you apply the logic of the argument, there's nothing against it. The Conservative Party has, essentially, been a liberal/centre-left party for the past 50 years anyway (including under Thatcher). And didn't Plaid try to enter a coalition with them in Wales?

On Plaid specifically, they are nominally a left-wing party, but they also have this ideological confusionism that other Celtic nationalist parties have in that there is this very strong nationalist/home language constituency. You see this also in Sinn Fein (Ireland) and the SNP (Scotland), both of which are nominally centre-left or left-wing, but which also have some very right-wing and conservative factions who are basically silenced or appeased by the nationalistic mission of their parties' leaderships.

The problem with Proper Tidy's whole gambit here is that he is entering the capitalist arena, and having to mediate all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the parties. One has to ask the obvious and glaring question - Why? Vote Plaid, he is saying, but why should a socialist vote for anything other than socialism?

Jesus wept.

The problem with you squeegees is that you are so obviously trapped in a little bubble of your own making. You're a fucking cult.

You're objections to anybody taking the least worst option in an election are deranged. Utterly deranged.

It might at least be logical if you refused to participate in electoral politics yourselves but you fucking don't!

 

[dannysp]

Jesus wept.

The problem with you squeegees is that you are so obviously trapped in a little bubble of your own making. You're a fucking cult.

You're objections to anybody taking the least worst option in an election are deranged. Utterly deranged.

It might at least be logical if you refused to participate in electoral politics yourselves but you fucking don't!

OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.

 

[Proper Tidy]

OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.

Whereas by abstaining, you still get fucked up the arse, but you don't have even the slightest say in who fucks you up the arse, how hard, and how fast.

World of difference, that.

 

[Gravediggers]

Y

ou are confusing two things. Yes, the goal needs to harmonise with the means - although harmonisation is a relative term here. Im no fan of the Socialist Studies group and no doubt the level of democracy practiced within it falls short of what is required in a socialist party (although I very much doubt you can say that they are therefore a completely undemocratic organisation). However, their goal is still exactly the same as that of the SPGB and this is the point. It may be that that goal is unachievable (by them) but saying some thing is unachievable does not mean it is not in the interest of workers to achieve it

I'm not confusing anything but you has always are trying your weezle yourself out of a hole by suggesting because Socialist Studies are not a "completely" undemocratic organisation everything is hunky dory. Back on your bike. Would you work with an organisation that held meetings behind closed doors? Of course not.

Well come on GD this is not really the case at all and you must know it. But first to answer your rather odd assertion that "Again you are refusing to answer my question on why should the majority give way to the minority? What exactly do you mean by this?

Look, when I was in the SPGB and putting forward the views I have put forward here I was fully aware that I was in a distinct minority. I was not trying to persuade the majority to "give way" to the minority in this sense -that is to call for a situation in which the views of the minority prevailed over those the majority. This is what you seem to be literally suggesting here which is utterly ludicrous. What I was endeavouring to do (as where a few other comrades( was to persuade the majority to change their minds on the matter so that what was a minority would become a majority. There is a big difference you know. I fully accept that the majority are in favour of the ban on religious beliefs but I dont agree with such a ban and therefore the only option for me was to leave the party unfortunately. There is nothing "undemocratic" about this if that is what you were suggesting. In fact it would be undemocratic and hyprocritical of me to have remained a member under the circumstances. This doesnt mean I am not still highly sympathetic to the SPGB. I am and dare I say it, have probably done more as a non member to promote the SPGB than most members in the SPGB itself.

Been there done that, but rejoined after my huffing and puffing cooled down and recognised that the party were capable of accepting my suggestions for improvements to be made but only in their time and at their pace. These improvements are now in place and accepted by all as necessary. No big deal all done and dusted.

Yet there are you still huffing and puffing about the party's ban on not accepting people with religious beliefs knowing full well that such a minority view hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of being further discussed and debated within the party whilst you remain outside of the party. OK at the time you found your position untenable on the religious question but why make such a big deal out of it when you have insisted here that it was of secondary importance in the setting up of WiC.

You could have stayed in and kept your focus on a far more important change in policy in my consideration and that is by putting forward the arguments on commonalities or even on changes in the hostility clause and expected and accepted small progress. Until eventually you reach the goal you are after. I'm sorry but your attitude of expectations is far too high for the membership to take in one breath. But that should not stop you from trying - but from inside the party.

I've made some headway not a lot I agree but I'm still pushing and continue to push for further improvements. Alright some of my suggestions have been turned down at ADM and Conference and some have been taken up and I'm happy with that and see no reason to even contemplate leaving the party.

Now as to your suggested range of options I "expect" applicants to take up, I certainly do not advocate the dishonest concealment of one's religious views (1) under the present arrangement nor persistently applying for membership knowing one will be turned down (2) in the hope that by constantly hammering away the door might be opened. That would be pointless. (3) is an option that some religous symapthisers of the party have taken up contrary to what you claim. I knew one such individual in my own branch who helped out but was not a member and there were others too. There is a guy in New Zealand I know of who contributes hugely to the WSPNZ but has religious views and therefore is not a member

You don't see 1. and 2. has viable options and that 3. is. Glad to hear that those that hold religious beliefs do support the socialist case and are willing to compromise and be involved in socialist activity. Good for them and good for us and that is the way it should be and is.

But your mistake is to assume that because someone does not participate in party activity that means "they aren't committed and determined socialists in the first place". With respect, dont you think that is being just a wee bit arrogant to imagine that the only socialists around are members or supporters of the SPGB. It incidentally flatly contradicts your earlier state position that the SPGB has modified the application of its hostility clause and now cosily engages in forums with likeminded people rather than hostile debate.

I said no such thing. The test of commitment and determination was available if they took up any of the 3 options. You have discounted 1. & 2. and agreed that 3. has been taken up on occasions. And I don't imagine the only socialists around are those who are members or supporters of the SPGB. I am well aware that such workers exist but it also depends on what you define by 'socialists'. For instance, Proper Tidy has admitted on this thread and the other one that he accepts our definition of socialism but neither of us would accept his understanding of socialism.

And it don't in any way contradict my stated position of speaking and discussing with like minded people in a forum. I've said it before the ends are of a similar nature but the means are out of sync. What the heck are you suggesting here, may I ask, that we stop talking to them? On your bike once again.

I would suggest that the vast majority of religious sympathisers upon hearing about the religious ban tend to move away from the SPGB altogther in disappointment. You just dont hear about them any more. I wouldnt be surprised if the figure is far higher than either of us imagine. True some persist hoping that they might be accepted as members but as the EC minutes reveal from time to time their applications are routinely turned down. This does not mean they are no longer interested in socialism and that is the point. I know somew of these people and I know full well that they remain committed socialists even if they do not make themselves known to the party

That is exactly the point I was making when I forwarded the three options. If they were committed and determined socialists they would go for 3. and why not unless of course to their mind you can only be a committed and determined socialist if you are actually a member of the SPGB. The point is you don't have to be a member to be committed and dedicated to the socialist case. And lest be honest and realistic that come the revolution it is highly unlikely that a majority of the working class will be members of the SPGB. I can live with that and I expect you are also of the same frame of mind.

Well according to you this "quiet revolution" has already taken place but if you dont mind me saying so GD why, in that case , your overly hostile demeanour? I mean jeez - Im actually a sympathiser of the SPGB after all! Gawd knows what sort of treatment an opponent can expect to receive. Here I am bigging up the organisation and saying its got an awful lot to offer and that people shouldnt just brush it aside in the way they do. Of course I had to explain why I am not a member - that I have certain differences but rather than just "agree to differ" you saw this as a reason to tear into me with your "On yer bike" jibes and the like. You are not doing the SPGB any favours GD by such an aggressive approach but I know the organisation well enough to realise that its not a reflection on everyone. Just cool it, man. Take the advice you so wisely gave Butchersapron

I know you find my style of argument off putting, you always have. But I did warn you at the very beginning not to expect a Mr Nice guy approach from me. I call a spade a spade and if you don't like it, tough. So your pity old me response is being given the cold shoulder. It takes all sorts to make the socialist case for Mr Nice and Mr Angry both have their roles to play. I accept that as a fact and have no need to get on my bike! Yes it would be nice to have a nice revolution but fortunately there are too many like myself who are unable to contain their anger after what we have experienced.

 

[Gravediggers]

It's like arguing with five gibbering drunks, it really is. Do you people not ever read back what you've written? Dear fucks.


Quote:
A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safeguards the environment.

Or

Quote:
Repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties. For the right to protest! End Police harassment.

Spot the difference.

Here's a clue - one is achievable under capitalism, the other isn't.

Now why would we need the state machinery in socialism? Beats me, but the retention of the state is a necessity if you wish to repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties, have no right to protest and seek and end to police harassment. But if the state is still in existence don't that also mean that the capitalist class are also still in existence?

But on the other hand Proper Tidy is under the impression that the state becomes a neutral institution under socialism. Or it could be me recovering from my drunken stupor. Naw I much prefer a puff so I get a fit of the giggles when I read such nonsense.

 

[robbo203]

Y

I'm not confusing anything but you has always are trying your weezle yourself out of a hole by suggesting because Socialist Studies are not a "completely" undemocratic organisation everything is hunky dory. Back on your bike. Would you work with an organisation that held meetings behind closed doors? Of course not. .

No I wouldnt but that doesnt affect the argument, does it? They have precisely the same objective as the SPGB so the SPGB is not the only political party advocating real socialism. And there are other besides them

Been there done that, but rejoined after my huffing and puffing cooled down and recognised that the party were capable of accepting my suggestions for improvements to be made but only in their time and at their pace. These improvements are now in place and accepted by all as necessary. No big deal all done and dusted.

Yet there are you still huffing and puffing about the party's ban on not accepting people with religious beliefs knowing full well that such a minority view hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of being further discussed and debated within the party whilst you remain outside of the party. OK at the time you found your position untenable on the religious question but why make such a big deal out of it when you have insisted here that it was of secondary importance in the setting up of WiC. .

Look GD Im not making a big deal of it. You are the one who latched on to the differences I had with the party which I only mentioned in passing to explain to certain individuals here why I was not a member. That was when you began snarling protectively at me like a dog with a bone. What do you expect me to do? Of course Im going to defend myself

You could have stayed in and kept your focus on a far more important change in policy in my consideration and that is by putting forward the arguments on commonalities or even on changes in the hostility clause and expected and accepted small progress. Until eventually you reach the goal you are after. I'm sorry but your attitude of expectations is far too high for the membership to take in one breath. But that should not stop you from trying - but from inside the party.

I've made some headway not a lot I agree but I'm still pushing and continue to push for further improvements. Alright some of my suggestions have been turned down at ADM and Conference and some have been taken up and I'm happy with that and see no reason to even contemplate leaving the party.

Thats all very well but you tell me how I could have remained in the party when one of the questions a person applying to join faces is "are religious ideas compatible with socialism" - or words to that effect. From my perspective some religious ideas are perfectly compatible with socialism in the sense that they dont clash with one's socialist convictions at all. It is essentially the social policies of organised religions that is the problem - not the metaphysics behind religion. Metaphysics whether in its materialist form or its idealist form is irrelevant to the socialist cause as Ive explained many times.

So now you tell me - how could I be expected to remain in the party given my views on the subject? I am not religious but I reject the SPGBs approach to religion. Its is irrational and doctrinaire and self crippling. It is simply superfluous to requirements. As I said many times if religious ideas did undermine socialist convictions you would soon notice that in other ways.

I dont know what your particular gripe with the party was and what induced you to rejoin but I do think the policy on religion is far more significant as a stumbling block than you allow for. You dont hear again of most of the people who turn away from the SPGB on learning about its ban on religion but believe me they are out there. The SPGB could have been a much bigger organisation than it is now if it had never had this ban in the first place.

You don't see 1. and 2. has viable options and that 3. is. Glad to hear that those that hold religious beliefs do support the socialist case and are willing to compromise and be involved in socialist activity. Good for them and good for us and that is the way it should be and is.

Well yes but then bang goes your theory that religious ideas stop people being dedicated and committed socialists. Cant you see this GD? Cant you see how irrational this argument is? What counts is what happens in practice, not some sweeping abstract apriori notion that "religion is against socialism". We should be scientific about this, willing to put our claims to the test and be empirical about it.

I said no such thing. The test of commitment and determination was available if they took up any of the 3 options. You have discounted 1. & 2. and agreed that 3. has been taken up on occasions. And I don't imagine the only socialists around are those who are members or supporters of the SPGB. I am well aware that such workers exist but it also depends on what you define by 'socialists'. For instance, Proper Tidy has admitted on this thread and the other one that he accepts our definition of socialism but neither of us would accept his understanding of socialism.

You certainly did imply that only peop0le who support the party are socialists be they members or not. Go back and read what you said. But now you have agreed that people with religious convictions can be socialists as well. So there really is no reason for the religious ban is there?

And it don't in any way contradict my stated position of speaking and discussing with like minded people in a forum. I've said it before the ends are of a similar nature but the means are out of sync. What the heck are you suggesting here, may I ask, that we stop talking to them? On your bike once again.
.

Er ..no , thats not what I said. Recall that I said I welcomed such developments if the parrty really is now engaging with others in our political sector in a non-hostile manner. This is an improvement in my view

That is exactly the point I was making when I forwarded the three options. If they were committed and determined socialists they would go for 3. and why not unless of course to their mind you can only be a committed and determined socialist if you are actually a member of the SPGB. The point is you don't have to be a member to be committed and dedicated to the socialist case. And lest be honest and realistic that come the revolution it is highly unlikely that a majority of the working class will be members of the SPGB. I can live with that and I expect you are also of the same frame of mind.
.

But according to you they can only be a committed and dedicated socialist if they are either a member of the SPGB or a supporter. This is what you said

Attend Branch meetings and vigorously put their case by example that they are indeed socialists by participating in party activity. None of this has happened to my knowledge. So if not why not? I can only assume they aren't committed and determined socialists in the first place..

I reject this claim. It is quite possible to be a committed and dedicted socialist and have little if nothing to do with the SPGB. Of course supporting the SPGB would be an indication of one's commitment to the socialist cause, I agree, but it does not follow that one has to support the SPGB to be a socialist. That is nonsense

I know you find my style of argument off putting, you always have. But I did warn you at the very beginning not to expect a Mr Nice guy approach from me. I call a spade a spade and if you don't like it, tough. So your pity old me response is being given the cold shoulder. It takes all sorts to make the socialist case for Mr Nice and Mr Angry both have their roles to play. I accept that as a fact and have no need to get on my bike! Yes it would be nice to have a nice revolution but fortunately there are too many like myself who are unable to contain their anger after what we have experienced.

Well maybe so GD but you need to know that you do not do yourself or the SPGB any favours by adopting the kind of aggresively hostile approach you use. If you want to just vent your anger I can understand that. But communication is a two way thing and you dont encourage people to meet you half way by jumping down their throat. You need to ask yourself what is your purpose in participating in a forum

 

[Louis MacNeice]

OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.

Nice analogy danny.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I know you find my style of argument off putting, you always have. But I did warn you at the very beginning not to expect a Mr Nice guy approach from me. I call a spade a spade and if you don't like it, tough. So your pity old me response is being given the cold shoulder. It takes all sorts to make the socialist case for Mr Nice and Mr Angry both have their roles to play. I accept that as a fact and have no need to get on my bike! Yes it would be nice to have a nice revolution but fortunately there are too many like myself who are unable to contain their anger after what we have experienced.

Socialism as some sort humourless role play game; compose a biting paragraph and increase your 'case points' by two. Please tell me you are appropriately dressed when your posting.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Gravediggers]

No problem - I think it's my fault in getting the semantics wrong of 'support', 'campaign for', 'vote for', and so on. It's half-11 on a Sunday night, so I'm sure you'll let me off on that one. At this time of night, I can barely spell semantics, let alone type it - and I've work in the morning, so I'd better hit the sack! Hope to debate with you again maybe later in the week.

Yeh it all gets somewhat confusing when the left get so mixed up in their effort to square the circle.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yeh it all gets somewhat confusing when the left get so mixed up in their effort to square the circle.

It's always soemone else's fault; if it wasn't for those damnable lefties you'd have got it all sorted long ago.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. not hating, just pointing and laughing, pointing and laughing.