Pessimism or Hope
- This topic has 84 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:robbo203 wrote:I put forward the idea of a socialist research centre or website which could engage the collective efforts of many dispersed members but no one seems to have taken up the idea.
How is that any different to what is in the education section of this website? And if you're so enthused by the idea why not rejoin and make it a reality? After all, it seems that "World in Common" is now defunct?
No, I had something quite different and more ambitious in mind – a kind of data or fact collecting and categorising service. Have a look at Andy's website which I provided a link to and you will get an idea of what I am talking about. This is precisely the kind of collaborative effort that could involve many dispersed members around the countryI cannot rejoin, unfortunately, while the existing policy on the question of religion – not that I am religious myself – remains in force for the simple reason that I cannot accept the assertion that religious beliefs are necessarily incompatible with socialism
robbo203 wrote:My impression is that the Party has been shrinking and is certainly significantly smaller than when I first joined – probably about 200 members less.Fewer.
Quote:robbo203 wrote: My impression is that the Party has been shrinking and is certainly significantly smaller than when I first joined – probably about 200 members less. Fewer.“Better Fewer, But Better” – Lenin
Gramsci is supposed to said that he held to "Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will". The Party seems to be the opposite: optimism of the intellect, pessimism of the will ….
Are we honey or vinegar. No let's be honest? We should be swamped during this period of class war.
The universal feedback we get is 'I like your ideas,I agree with you, but I want to do something here and now' that our argument hat 'here and nbow' is building a revolt against capital doesn't dissuade them, until a critical mass exists, people won't join, until they join, there won't be a critical mass. We need the early majority to switch to us in droves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
That was not the the feedback from the Zeitgeist Movement who if anything thought our ideas were rather dated.
robbo203 wrote:Another thing I find very surprising is that hardly any pamphlets seem to be published these days. You should be knocking out at least half a dozen each year, if not more , perhaps dealing with more specific and narrowly focussed topics e.g. the war in Syria. Ive made umpteen links to party pamphlets in various forums I have been engaged in but the lack of variety is very limiting, franklyI would prefer short videos: Not videos of lectures or talks but videos that use animation, clips etc.People are more likely to be attracted to video than a pamphlet theses days. But with regard to the OP, I remain optimistic about the class struggle and the possibility of growth.We need to change and take some risks.Workers are searching, it is all about what they see when they look our way. Secterian, utopian? or a party determined to wage war on the capitalist class and its system.It is a long road from which there is no return (to socialism) but while we are on our way…….anyway listen to the Hollies for the rest.My point being that we do not want to appear or to give the impression to be walking by our struggling fellow workers on the way to the promised land. We will never arrive without them.
Vin wrote:We need to change and take some risks.Workers are searching, it is all about what they see when they look our way. Secterian, utopian? or a party determined to wage war on the capitalist class and its system.It is a long road from which there is no return (to socialism) but while we are on our way…….anyway listen to the Hollies for the rest.My point being that we do not want to appear or to give the impression to be walking by our struggling fellow workers on the way to the promised land. We will never arrive without them.Young Master Smeet wrote:The universal feedback we get is 'I like your ideas,I agree with you, but I want to do something here and now' that our argument hat 'here and nbow' is building a revolt against capital doesn't dissuade them, until a critical mass exists, people won't join, until they join, there won't be a critical mass.(my bold)I've never understood why the SPGB can't be part of workers struggles and expressions of anger etc, even organising events such as demo's, community projects etc. Anything that gets across to as many people as possible and opportunities that show what we believe in, ie direct democratic participation, voluntary co-opration and organisation.Agitation and organisation, are core revolutionary tools, are they not?I get the attitude, I used to scoff at protestors begging their masters for a better deal, I still do to some degree. But guess who gets the publicity? Which groups attract new recruits eager to make a difference?I don't see why the tactcs and the message can't be combined?
I'd say go ahead and do those things, just don't try and control them through the party: not all political activity hjas to be through the party. When I do union work, I do it as a trade unionist, and with a clear idea of how to win the particular battle, not turn it into some sort of platform for the party.
The whole point I'm making YMS, is for the SPGB to be the ones organising. A call to the workers to rally around. To possibly become the workers party that I've heard mentioned on this forum a number of times.To do those things indivdualy, as many members already do, does not present the case for soialism on a wide scale. It's not a proud banner for workers to rally under.Also, in case anyone gets the ipression, I'm not even hinting at entryism.
Because apart from trade union activity to increase wages and better conditions which the party supports even in a sectional or national way, other political advantages dispensed by the ruling-class secured for one section of the working-class come at the expense of another section of the working-class. The ruling-class do not want to pay. The Socialist Party is not in the business of dividing workers along lines other than socialist or non-socialist.
jondwhite wrote:Because apart from trade union activity to increase wages and better conditions which the party supports even in a sectional or national way, other political advantages dispensed by the ruling-class secured for one section of the working-class come at the expense of another section of the working-class. The ruling-class do not want to pay. The Socialist Party is not in the business of dividing workers along lines other than socialist or non-socialist.A union gets higher wages with a threat of strike action at the expense of other workers. At least that is what the government tells us. Therefore, logically trade union action divides the working class We may as well argue that a disabled group fighting for wheelchairs is dviding the working class.
SocialistPunk wrote:The whole point I'm making YMS, is for the SPGB to be the ones organising. A call to the workers to rally around. To possibly become the workers party that I've heard mentioned on this forum a number of times.To do those things indivdualy, as many members already do, does not present the case for soialism on a wide scale. It's not a proud banner for workers to rally under.Also, in case anyone gets the ipression, I'm not even hinting at entryism.1) It is dangerous to organise all political activity through one organisation.2) It would confuse the socialist message with the imediate aims and tactics of particular struggles.3) There are already people and groups, such as trade unions, organising these struggles.4) The working class doesn't need us to organise the class struggle.5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fight.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:The whole point I'm making YMS, is for the SPGB to be the ones organising. A call to the workers to rally around. To possibly become the workers party that I've heard mentioned on this forum a number of times.To do those things indivdualy, as many members already do, does not present the case for soialism on a wide scale. It's not a proud banner for workers to rally under.Also, in case anyone gets the ipression, I'm not even hinting at entryism.1) It is dangerous to organise all political activity through one organisation.2) It would confuse the socialist message with the imediate aims and tactics of particular struggles.3) There are already people and groups, such as trade unions, organising these struggles.4) The working class doesn't need us to organise the class struggle.5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fight.
Appologies in advance for using the quote facility in full.My responses in order below.1) The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties,…..and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour,…"Not saying I think there should or even would be one mass workers party, but it's clear the early members of the SPGB where hopeful in drawing people to the cause, and thought it important to work towards that goal.2) How would organising, say an anti-capitalist demo, confuse the SPGB message with an anti-capitalist message? I'm not talking about organising anti-austerity or save our NHS events. Those are clearly reformist requests. But an anti-capitalist orgainised event, demo etc, would likely attract some sympathetic minds. I did previously state that the various demos attract publicity for the groups doing the organising. It's advertising. 3) Again I'm not talking about setting up a reformist wing of the SPGB. I'm talking about gaining publicity and sympathy, which in turn has a better chance of leading to increased support.Trade Unions are reformist in nature and in the UK are heavily centered around the Labour party.4) I said nothing about the SPGB organising the "class struggle". Just waving its banner a little more forcefully.5) This sounds somewhat deterministic. Are you suggesting the SPGB just sit and wait for the right "objective conditions" to arrive. Almost as if the SPGB is in a form of dormancy in order to conserve resources, in readiness for the right "objective conditions".Have I missed a change over the years? I thought the SPGB existed to "make socialists"? The more socialists the closer to the so called critical mass that has been mentioned numerous times on this forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.