Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Socialists are therefore hostile, not in the sense of committing violent acts against other parties or their members, but to the ideas of those parties which support capitalism.

Gnome, Where does this come from?

Vin wrote:

Come to think of it, there is nothing there indicating that we are hostile to individuals? We oppose Corbyn's ideas, not Corbyn.

Interesting.  So ideas and parties are able to exist independently of individuals?

[SocialistPunk]

Maybe this should be on the negative/positive campaign thread, but hey, this one is getting more interest so here I go.Someone wrote that having a go at the "right wing" and government is futile since it is self evident. But is it. This government are very hostile to our class, and there are a few rather unpleasant individuals in power right now.You gotta ask who is our intended audience? Do we expect rich "right wing" Tory supporters to muster under our banner of world socialist revolution? No! They never will.The more fertile audience are those people who are drawn to the "left wing". There are more people on the "left" who share similar humane values to us than there are on the "right".Does attacking figures on the left who are making waves seem like a good move? Remember I pointed out some research that suggested political ad campaigns only appeal to those already fixed in their opinion. If that is the case then waging an openly hostile campaign against him will more likely turn away the very people who are more open to our ideas.We need to be smart when it comes to propaganda.To summarize. Is the openly hostile attack campaign for the benefit of Corbyn's detractors, or those who he has enthused? If it's for his detractors, then it's a waste of time. If it's aimed at those who are enthused with the potential for change, then reactionary attack is the wrong approach.The choice is simple. Stay small or aim to become strong.

[jondwhite]

jondwhite wrote:

Is the Marmite image different in context from the Leninism: 57 varieties all unfit for human consumption, a Solidarity cartoon in their pamphlet As we see it? Wasn't this used in the Standard once or even on the cover?http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/more-lenin-or-less-lenin-socialist-standard-2004

Not saying I agree with either image but I've found the Socialist Standard from October 1979 front cover used the Leninism: 57 varieties image (the Solidarity pamphlet is possibly dated 1972 and I'm not certain uses it anyway)

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Now, as a result of the blog item, it's been re-tweeted (scroll down): https://twitter.com/officialspgb People will think we're proud of it and that we are indeed waging a "ferocious media campaign" against Corbyn. Why don't members think before they shoot?

 

Quote:

there are many more members who profoundly disagree that we should "disavow" the Marmite image and are more than content to be part of a "ferocious" campaign against Corbyn and all that he represents.

ALB, Gnome, SOYMB blog will remove the relevant blog-post if instructed to do so by today's EC meeting, as it seems that an EC decision would be the most democratic (albeit imperfect) way the blog can judge the views of the Party on the issue.I don't think we can be fairer than that in attempting to follow the Party's general wishes.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Not saying I agree with either image but I've found the Socialist Standard from October 1979 front cover used the Leninism: 57 varieties image (the Solidarity pamphlet is possibly dated 1972 and I'm not certain uses it anyway)

This is a brilliant, original SPGB production which others have copied, not the other way round.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

SOYMB blog will remove the relevant blog-post if instructed to do so by today's EC meeting.

There is nothing wrong with the blog reproducing the good statement from the media committee or the Private Eye article. The objection is to it reproducing the Marmite thing in the middle of a controversy about it, i.e that's all that would need to be removed if it's decided to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Socialists are therefore hostile, not in the sense of committing violent acts against other parties or their members, but to the ideas of those parties which support capitalism.

Gnome, Where does this come from?

These words appear elsewhere on this site (explanation of Clause 7 of the Declaration of Principles):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Socialists are therefore hostile, not in the sense of committing violent acts against other parties or their members, but to the ideas of those parties which support capitalism.

Gnome, Where does this come from?

These words appear elsewhere on this site (explanation of Clause 7 of the Declaration of Principles):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles

And from the explanation of Clause 8:

Quote:

Among all the political parties in Great Britain, only the Socialist Party is dedicated to socialism as an immediate goal. It is this objective that makes the Socialist Party revolutionary – our dedication to peaceful, democratic and immediate change.The Socialist Party is, therefore, engaged in a war of ideas against all other parties. Those other parties, no matter what they claim, are supporting the capitalist system and opposing the immediate establishment of socialism.Only the conscious support of the working class will create socialism, and to this end the Socialist Party seeks to increase understanding of, and mobilize support for, socialism.

emphasis added.

[ALB]

That's a red herring, not to say a kneejerk. Nobody is saying that we are not opposed to Corbyn or the Labour Party. That's not the issue. It's about the way and tone in which we express this opposition.

[Anonymous]

error

[Anonymous]

Gnome, nothing you quote in #354 indicates I need to be hostile and at war with workers who join the Labour Party. That is an absurdity During WW2 we sent our fraternal greetings and refused to fight our fellow workers in the Nazi party. 

[maxhess]

I'd like to point out a few of the comments Derek Wall has been tweeting about The Socialist Party.For those who don't know, Derek Wall is a Green Party member and is their International Coordinator.This.And this.In response to being asked what the Socialist Party does in pursuit of socialism, he was informed about pamphlets, the Socialist Standard, electoral participation etc. His response was to criticise our "Jeremy is a reformist" position (assuming that is still our position), and to say "You are full of shit and do nothing, think nothing".Derek Wall also admits to being "extremely abusive" to the Socialist Party, and says it's because we refuse to "change". By that, he means change to doing what he'd like.Are we for or against reformism? I understood that we oppose it, and that's what the Twitter account does.Derek Wall wants the same thing as Jeremy Corbyn: capitalism managed by those on left. If the Labour Party implodes at a later date because of failed reformism, why shouldn't Derek Wall's Green Party, with lookalike reformist policies, then come under scrutiny? Maybe he knows this could happen.Would it be a bad thing if the Green Party imploded as well? If The Socialist Party wants to achieve something, then with both Labour and the Greens discredited, wouldn't that be our opportunity to become a serious opposition to the Tories?Derek Wall is hostile to The Socialist Party Twitter account because it rejects Corbyn's reformism, and in doing so, it rejects his and the Green Party's reformism, and so he just hurls endless abuse. Should we be intimated and cowed into going quite on reformism by this?The SPGB Twitter account is attracting followers with a pro-socialism anti-reformism stance. In a few years, it can obtain more followers than Derek Wall's 19,700. When he then demands to know, via Twitter, what we're doing to promote socialism, we can reply, more than him.

[lanz the joiner]

gnome wrote:

Among all the political parties in Great Britain, only the Socialist Party is dedicated to socialism as an immediate goal. It is this objective that makes the Socialist Party revolutionary – our dedication to peaceful, democratic and immediate change.

Sorry if I'm bringing up an old tired issue here… but why isn't the Socialist Equality Party thought of by the SPGB as having socialism as an immediate goal? Is it because their definition of socialism differs from that of the SPGB?

[Anonymous]

maxhess wrote:

I'd like to point out a few of the comments Derek Wall has been tweeting about The Socialist Party.For those who don't know, Derek Wall is a Green Party member and is their International Coordinator.This.And this.In response to being asked what the Socialist Party does in pursuit of socialism, he was informed about pamphlets, the Socialist Standard, electoral participation etc. His response was to criticise our "Jeremy is a reformist" position (assuming that is still our position), and to say "You are full of shit and do nothing, think nothing".Derek Wall also admits to being "extremely abusive" to the Socialist Party, and says it's because we refuse to "change". By that, he means change to doing what he'd like.Are we for or against reformism? I understood that we oppose it, and that's what the Twitter account does.Derek Wall wants the same thing as Jeremy Corbyn: capitalism managed by those on left. If the Labour Party implodes at a later date because of failed reformism, why shouldn't Derek Wall's Green Party, with lookalike reformist policies, then come under scrutiny? Maybe he knows this could happen.Would it be a bad thing if the Green Party imploded as well? If The Socialist Party wants to achieve something, then with both Labour and the Greens discredited, wouldn't that be our opportunity to become a serious opposition to the Tories?Derek Wall is hostile to The Socialist Party Twitter account because it rejects Corbyn's reformism, and in doing so, it rejects his and the Green Party's reformism, and so he just hurls endless abuse. Should we be intimated and cowed into going quite on reformism by this?The SPGB Twitter account is attracting followers with a pro-socialism anti-reformism stance. In a few years, it can obtain more followers than Derek Wall's 19,700. When he then demands to know, via Twitter, what we're doing to promote socialism, we can reply, more than him.

 Party members should be on twitter supporting @officialSPGBAs I have said on another thread SM campaigns have an effect on opinion.

[jondwhite]

lanz the joiner wrote:

gnome wrote:

Among all the political parties in Great Britain, only the Socialist Party is dedicated to socialism as an immediate goal. It is this objective that makes the Socialist Party revolutionary – our dedication to peaceful, democratic and immediate change.

Sorry if I'm bringing up an old tired issue here… but why isn't the Socialist Equality Party thought of by the SPGB as having socialism as an immediate goal? Is it because their definition of socialism differs from that of the SPGB?

yes but also Gerry Healy and David North

[Author]

Posts