“Socialist” Party of Great Britain
- This topic has 34 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I heard on the grapevine that a member of your party argued in public, during your recent election campaign, that the TUSC candidate should be disqualified from standing for election as he was intent on breaking the law (by defying imposed austerity if elected). Extraordinary piece of anti-working-class, anti-socialist claptrap. I hope charges are being brought with a view to expelling this member?
The comment is at the bottom of this pagehttp://www.brixtonblog.com/tulse-hill-by-election-the-candidates-speak/14428
Quote:*** July 18, 2013 at 9:12 am ·So Steve Nally, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, believes in putting people before profit. This means he still supports profit making.And doesn’t his condoning of breaking the law invalidate his candidacy?What is this crap, Stuart? Try thinking for yourself. If you understood the case for socialism you'd know that Nally is a reformist who thinks that capitalism can be made to work in the interests of workers. History shows that it can't. The comment about Nally's mealy-mouthed, romantic posturing made by a member of the SPGB is very clearly tongue-in-cheek. No revolutionary socialist cares a fig for legality or any other bourgeois bollocks. Go and educate yourself about the case for socialism and then we can have a serious debate.
Frankly, I'd rather not be a member of an organisation that expelled people for having their own personal views. The position of the party, as democratically decided is pretty clear. For instance: "trade unions being a necessity under capitalism, any action on their part upon sound lines should be heartily supported." (Manifesto fo the Socialist Party). "Trade union" above can stand in for any organisation for the defence of the living conditions of the working class.Of course, that means we do not fetishise lawfulness any more than we would fetishise lawlessness: we recognise that most confrontations with the state will lead to the victory of the big battalions (or the small ones with the heavy fire-power).What we stand for is effective action, and the most effective action is building a mass movement for the abolition of capitalism.
Stuart,I'm sure your comment was tongue in cheek . . . as was the comment of the SPGB speaker. If that's what he actually said.cheers.
stuartw2112 wrote:I heard on the grapevine that a member of your party argued in public, during your recent election campaign, that the TUSC candidate should be disqualified from standing for election as he was intent on breaking the law (by defying imposed austerity if elected). Extraordinary piece of anti-working-class, anti-socialist claptrap. I hope charges are being brought with a view to expelling this member?Are there some Chinese Whispers on this particular grapevine?As I understand it the Electoral Commission has the power to declare an election invalid.As the member asked "…doesn’t his condoning of breaking the law invalidate his candidacy?" This is a could statement not a should statement — it's pointing out a matter of fact not suggesting a course of action.
Now I've seen the actual comment and context, I don't suppose it's quite as bad as I thought. It does imply, though, that the member would not support on principle a movement of local councils that refused to, say, evict tenants because of the bedroom tax. So clearly anti-working class.On another note, I saw someone elsewhere comment on the result by saying that they weren't surprised TUSC beat the SPGB because the SPGB's case is the most intelligent, and you can't expect that to get anywhere in this lunatic society. Has he got a point? He must have as Jonathan Chambers assures me that I've got to go off and get myself an education before commenting further! Gulp! I'd better go do just that.
imposs1904 wrote:Cheers.Have you got your copy of Keeping My Head by Harry Wicks handy?. I think he describes somewhere an SPGB member known as "Workhouse Waller" who used to play a prominent role in occupations of workhouses to try to get better conditions for the inmates. Hence his nickname. Or maybe he was an ex-member. I can't remember. And he would have been acting in an individual capacity.
"Another outstanding unemployment speaker in the 1920's was Tom Waller, affectionally known as Workhouse Waller. He too had got his Socialist education from the SPGB [and is later identified as an ex-member]. Like his voice, his speeches were strong and rasping. Wage slavery and capitalism were his enemy, a Socialist society his objective. When the local board of guardians said that there was to be no more poor law relief without tak work – which meant the workhouse – he was ready with the answer: 'We enter the workhouse all together.' (p.21)
Young Master Smeet wrote:Frankly, I'd rather not be a member of an organisation that expelled people for having their own personal views.This ^^
Young Master Smeet wrote:Frankly, I'd rather not be a member of an organisation that expelled people for having their own personal views.Depends surely on whether those personal views conflict with or are detrimental to the interests of the Party…
Sadly, my book has long gone but Rob has kindly provided the quote. It's a great book and I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in radical history. I think Wicks also mentions another SPGBer or ex-SPGBer – Johnny Holmes – in the book who was involved unemployment campaigns in the same period.cheers
A couple of points not mentioned are was Nally committing TUSC to breaking the law, and was there a "law-breaking" clause in his election address?Anyway, the more important thing is his reformist (and, therefore, capitalism-maintaining) policies.
Here's what Nally wrote:
Quote:If elected I will immediately convene a Lambeth Anti-Austerity Forum to draw up a needs budget that puts people before profit and protects the most vulnerable in our local community.If that means breaking the law then so be it. Better to break the law than to break the poor.Actually, in saying this, Nally does seem to have gone beyond what TUSC normally takes care not to say.explicitly. For instance, Here's how Tony Mulheron of SPEW puts the normal position:
Quote:The mantra 'not going illegal' seems to be the catch-all excuse for implementing the most savage cuts in Liverpool's history. We [the Liverpool 47 group and the Socialist Party – Eds.] have argued for a needs budget not an illegal budget. This means using every legal device to defend jobs and services – using council reserves, taking privatised services back in-house.I think that the reason why they don't normally talk of acting illegally is that they are trying to be "credible" and know that calling for the setting of an "illegal budget" would not be seen as this: And lay they themselves open to this reply from the Brighton Green Party who understood them to be calling for this:
Quote:In Q&A notes released at the same time as the budget the Greens take up this question:“Q: Why not defy the Government and refuse to set a budget – or set an uncut one?A: These are not the defiant 1980s. Nowadays, if we set an illegal budget, an unbalanced budget (where spending exceeds income) or no budget, it will just be set for us by the Council's Chief Finance Officer or a central Government civil servant.”Ironically, Nally also might be being hauled over the coals by his party for his statement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.