“Socialist” Party of Great Britain
- This topic has 34 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Depends surely on whether those personal views conflict with or are detrimental to the interests of the Party…
Not if the person who holds them accepts that they are not the policy of the party and accepts the democratic decision of the party. That's the advantage of having an agreed party position, we can disown rogue voices. Oh, and don't call me Shirley.
Young Master Smeet wrote:gnome wrote:Depends surely on whether those personal views conflict with or are detrimental to the interests of the Party…Not if the person who holds them accepts that they are not the policy of the party and accepts the democratic decision of the party. That's the advantage of having an agreed party position, we can disown rogue voices.
Then we're agreed except there's no need to "disown rogue voices"; there have always been members who have held minority views on issues which have not necessarily brought them into conflict with or have been detrimental to the interests of the Party. In other cases there has been the ultimate sanction and long may that remain.
Putting forward even personal views contrary to party agreed policy as if it were the agreed party policy from the platform of party meetings, or printed publications, stalls, pamphlets etc. would seem to be action detrimental.But in the context of pub talk, private e-mails, private letters, internet forum or internet comments or questions are surely to be distinguished from the above.The party case is indifferent to law, including but not limited to that we do not offer our support to upholding the laws of the land.
jondwhite wrote:Putting forward even personal views contrary to party agreed policy as if it were the agreed party policy from the platform of party meetings, or printed publications, stalls, pamphlets etc. would seem to be action detrimental.But in the context of pub talk, private e-mails, private letters, internet forum or internet comments or questions are surely to be distinguished from the above.Why should internet communications be distinguished or excluded from the list given in your first paragraph? Personal vews expressed on forums and other internet sites by members, contrary to agreed party policy, would be seen by a much larger number of people and, unless made under the cloak of anonymity, could have far greater ramifications for the party than that of the incident which occurred in the recent Tulse Hill by-Election.
internet communications are necessary to keep Socialists in touch with each other; i would welcome the input from non SPGB / WSM aligned people on here, as their very presence on an internet based Socialist discussion board means they have sought out a place to discuss Socialism. that said, i am prepared to discuss with anyone on here; after all, i've read (and agreed wholeheartedly) with "Debating: A Lost Art" on page 14 of this month's "Socialist Standard"
stuartw2112 wrote:…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.What I actually suggested was that once you knew what our case was we could have a serious debate. Not the same as suggesting that you should shut up until then!
Jonathan Chambers wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:…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.What I actually suggested was that once you knew what our case was we could have a serious debate. Not the same as suggesting that you should shut up until then!
Don't hold your breath, Jonathan; Stuart's been a member of the party on two separate occasions so should know our case back to front.
stuartw2112 wrote: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.'Anti-working class'? What can this term – bandied about by lefties who can't think of any new and interesting insults – actually mean? What could it ever have meant? Nothing very much, I'd suggest. It's about as meaningful as the phrase 'permanent revolution'. An oxymoron for poxy morons. 'Anti-working class'. Let's interrogate that little phrase… What does it mean to be 'anti-working class'? Once, in Chamberlain Square in Birmingham, whilst trying to sell the Socialist Standard to any member of my class who'd stop and buy one I got so bored of waiting for opportunities to talk to my fellow-workers about the importance of raising class-consciousness that I inadvertently made eye-contact with a rival seller of The Next Step. Bad move. I was pounced upon by this crazy, misguided Leninist who harangued me relentlessly about the need to smash this, support that, oppose this and demand the other. I have a fairly high boredom threshold, but after thirty-two seconds of this guy's shit I was falling asleep on my feet. When I refused to sign his pointless little petition about something that had put a bee in his bonnet – pointing out that revolutionaries ought not to be pleading to government – he called me an 'anti-working class bag of shit'. I was only a baby then, rather than the thick-skinned hardass motherfucker that I am now, and I was really quite upset by the whole episode. I might have gone home and cried myself to sleep. Again! I don't remember. These days, if one of the vanishingly rare lefty shitheads calls me an 'anti-working class bag of shit' it just makes me laugh. If lefty shitheads aren't calling you that then you're quite simply not doing enough to wind them up… Let's assume – for the sake of a half-decent argument – that the term 'anti-working class' connotes someone – or something – that is opposed to the interests of the working class. Seems fair enough to me. What we now must do is discuss what constitutes the interests of the working class. Me and Marx are pretty clear on that one. Attempting to reform capitalism so that it works in favour of working class interests is, say Karl and I, counter-revolutionary and futile. Like the bearded one says in Value, Price and Profit whilst chatting about the limitations of trade unions within capitalism, ' Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!" ' Socialists – and I use that term solely to describe those workers who adhere to the object and principles of the SPGB – argue that capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of the working class. Anyone who argues differently is arguing for the continuation of capitalism irrespective of what they may call themselves. To sum up, arguing for the continuation of capitalism is to argue against the interests of the working class. And if that's not anti-working class I don't know what is… Finally – for now, at least – I didn't say you should shut up until you've educated yourself about the case for socialism, Stuart, and you should comment further! What I said is that we can only have a serious debate about the case for socialism when you understand the case for socialism.
gnome wrote:Don't hold your breath, Jonathan; Stuart's been a member of the party on two separate occasions so should know our case back to front.Damn! I was holding my breath, there!
Now, did he leave because he disagreed with the socialist case as expounded by the SPGB, or does he think they are not socialist (enough)?
Not wishing to speak for Stuart, but he's recently said this article:http://leftunity.org/which-way-for-left-unity-the-case-for-the-left-party-platform/ more or less summises his political reasoning/trajectory. It's part of an interesting debate within the new left unity mob, one that reprises, funnily enough, the one that lead to our foundation.I can remember, when I were a bairn, that in the school playground two lads would put their arms over each other's shoulders, and start chanting: "All join up for playing (rounders/tigs/hide and seek, etc.). New lads would join the line, until most of the playground were in the chain (and playtime ended before we could play tigs, rounders, hide and seek, etc.).The debate there is that you'll get more people to link arms if you just chant 'All join up' without having any specific game in mind. It's a valid argument, but I know I come down on the other side, that without a specific objective it will end up being like St. Joseph's playtime.
rodmanlewis wrote:Why should a non-member be concerned about who we do and do not expel?Because the SPGB have a unique responsibility to the working-class as evidenced by policies including our completely open meetings policy. Why else should the working-class support the Socialist Party?
rodmanlewis wrote:Now, did he leave because he disagreed with the socialist case as expounded by the SPGB, or does he think they are not socialist (enough)?I understand that the principle reason why he left the party on this occasion was because his branch declined to make a financial contribution to the 'Occupy Movement'.There have been several threads on this forum about the 'Occupy Movement', some of which Stuart has participated in. Here's part of one such thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/occupy-movement?page=15#comment-919
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.