Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism

Every time Owen came close to making a point, the fat balding, ginger headed Scottish arse interupted. Why invite on a guest, when all you will do is fuck up his relevant contribution? Answers on a postcard to ginger Neil! Steve Colborn.

 fat balding, ginger headed Scottish arse"…tsk, tsk, i'm not sure how many isms you have upset with that description. 

Sorry, slight derailment. Would you kindly provide links or reference so I can learn how Britain became as socialist as it is? Don't know the history. thank you.

Even if we agree with Marx and the SPGB that ‘a parliamentary road to socialism’ can at least play a part in the process of revolution, isn’t it also true that workers will in parallel organise their own structures, as the SPGB concedes that some strands of the Communist workers’ movement will construct ‘non-parliamentary councils and committees’.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamentAnd not just ‘anarchists’, but ‘council communists’ (and perhaps some pseudo-Leninist groups) also advocate such Workers’ Councils (or soviets).My question is:‘What would be the power relationship between an SPGB majority in parliament and those Workers’ Councils?’Obviously, SPGB members would also be involved, like most workers, within the Workers’ Councils, because the revolutionary process would involve both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary elements. But, where would sovereignty lie?In simple terms, who would control the weapons?On achieving a parliamentary majority, at least in theory (if not practice, given coup-organisers within the military and wider state (The Curragh, ‘Clockwork Orange’, Column 88, etc.)), the state weaponry would be under the control of workers’ delegates within parliament, but Workers’ Councils will also clearly have their own armed Workers’ Militias, which will have developed to defend Communist meetings, picket lines, buildings, etc., during the revolutionary process.The potential for clashes between these ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ armed groups clearly exists, given the realities of political power and disagreements between various Communist strands.If I was asked that question at the moment (ie. ‘who should control the arms?’), I would be inclined to answer ‘The Workers’ Councils’. That is, at the moment of achieving a parliamentary majority, the SPGB (and any other party’s delegates within parliament) would transfer political control of the armed forces to the Workers’ Councils, so that the army and airforce especially would be subordinate to Workers’ extra-parliamentary control. We don’t want any jiggery-pokery and manoeuvres within parliament that re-transfers ‘legitimate’ control of the military back to the ‘previous owners’, and allows the officer corps to reclaim ‘legitimacy’ at a moment of crisis. If the majority of SPGB delegates was slender, MI5 hit-squads could assassinate a few, and (before new elections could be called to replace the dead Communists) precipitate a re-run of the ‘transfer’ vote which then returns a majority for the reactionaries, who then immediately ‘legitimately’ use the armed forces to suppress the Workers’ Councils and their armed militias. The ruling class won’t dither, in these circumstances.I suppose I’m asking does the SPGB have a ‘twintrack strategy’, of being elected to both parliament and any emerging Workers’ Councils, but on the understanding that the ‘parliamentary track’ is always the subordinate one. That is, that fundamentally the SPGB favours Workers’ Councils as the location of sovereignty and legitimacy for workers’ power, and that the ‘parliamentary road’ is a mere supplementary tool to help to achieve that aim, the castration of parliament.Or, is an SPGB-dominated parliament to be the controller of the weapons?

So, to be clear, the SPGB will keep control of arms, and thus dominate the Workers' Councils by threat of force?Or am I missing some subtlety, or making an unwarranted, unspoken assumption that the SPGB doesn't?

Well, you said:

Since this was a reply to my question about the 'parliament – workers' councils' relationship of (armed) power, but you neglected to mention that very thing, I was forced to attempt to 'fill the blanks'.If, as I said, I'm 'filling the blanks' incorrectly, you have the ability to correct me.Why haven't you taken this chance? In my experience, when someone summarily replies 're-read my post', they are either hiding something or being asked to consider something that they've not thought about and are confused and so bluster.I'm open to your correction, comrade.I'm asking questions, not stating facts or a hard-and-fast position of my own.If Vin declines to participate and answer my reasonable political question, could another member of the SPGB enlighten me? And, if necessary, change my present position?

I'm afraid I decide what I consider to be 'blanks' in answer to my questions, comrade, and am well able to formulate my own questions, and decide upon their reasonableness.You'll be glad, though, that I actually agree with you!It would be 'a complete waste of your time', to continue without engaging with my questions, rather than expecting me to ask questions of your devising or to your liking.Sorry, comrade, and thanks for your efforts.Well, since Vin has said that they're not an SPGB member, is there anyone from the SPGB who could answer my questions, and perhaps alter my views?