Special post-election conference on the party and its future

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What's his disagreement with us about that stopped him from becoming a member.How many are involved in the Moneyless Party…is it a one-man-band?

 The Money Free Party has 914 people on its FB page compared to 975 in the SPGB FB page as of today. Nick is indeed a prominent member but it is not a one man band; others are involved.  There are some on their site who advocated the reform of the money system but their arguments have been contested.  The point has also been made that it is not money that is the problem per se but the social relationships that necessitate its use – private property. So there does seem to be a considerable overlap between the MFP and the SPGB. I'm not 100%  sure what the differences are but I have a feeling that the question of the SPGB's blanket ban on religious belief is one of these as I recall reading some discussion on that a while agoWhy not join the  FB site and find out – like me?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

ALB, Have we ever been in touch with this person and this organisation?

You know him, Alan. He used to be on the WSM Forum where he made a nuisance of himself and got banned a number of times as a troll. He seems to have calmed down a bit since and is on our facebook page behaving properly.As to the difference, one no doubt is the one Robbo raises (but he would, wouldn't he!), but the more important one is that he does what Vin says we should avoid (and which we do avoid) of painting a "money-free society" as a nice, ideal society that can be established without class struggle and revolution.I think this video by him has been posted here before:https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=595597503903313&permPage=1

[alanjjohnstone]

So not one of fundamental difference…just a divergence on approaches or like our dispute with the SLP, secondary and not primary disagreements . Like TZM we have to transform them into proper political parties…ie as it says on D of P 

Quote:

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests

Perhaps we should lead by example 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 . Like TZM we have to transform them into proper political parties…ie as it says on D of P 

Quote:

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests

Perhaps we should lead by example 

 Whoa.  Hold yer horses here, Alan! What could you possibly mean by that ??? It would surely be up to them to doing any transforming themselves if they were not a "proper political party"and if they were,  how would the SPGB relate to them – as allies or opponents?  If the former, is it conceivable that some form of electoral pact or closer collaboration could be thrashed out and, if not , why not? The notion that there might be more than one poltical party expressing the class interest of workers might seem anathema but is entirely feasible.  For what its worth what is the position of the SPGB regarding  the Ashbourne Court/Socialist Studies group.  Im not overly fond of their rigid and doctrinaire posture on many things but I dont doubt that they are socialist and as such the expression of working class interests. Who knows? – one day the differences might be sunk and they might rejoin although admittedly it seems highly unlikely.  How many of them are left anyway – just out of curiosity?

[alanjjohnstone]

i was responding to ALB's comment that like TZM they lack a concept of social change other than the power of persuasion and in particular,  the working class and their class  struggles which we argue will be a powerful component of the revolution. I am aware that there may be other motivitators such as the environment activity but i do regard the working class consciousness as the key constituent in any change, because of their importance at the point of production. . TZM decline from taking any politlcal role and that is what i meant that we must argue that they do become a political party. I made no mention that they should join us but i thought i made it clear that i do not evoke the hostility clause against organisations i do not consider as enemies but that it should be reserved for those who oppose working class interests and the ideas of socialism, including its democratic features, as often demonstrated by such as those who can be viewed as insurrectionists and party vanguardism. TZM and MFP don't fit into that category.On Libcom and here i often say we need to re-assess our relationship with the "Thin Red Line" …but equally they too have to adapt and they are proving as intransigent as many SPGBers. I persist in saying that despite differences we can still work together and debate and discuss as comrades and offer that mutual support necessary for our survival as a viable tradition. I see no reason why there can't be different "socialist" parties. I do think it would be disappointing without some sort of agreed cooperation and coordination in that there would be much duplication of effort but i have suggested previously  that a the socialist party will be a party with a small p, one general workers movement , the umbrella or as we say the banner where all muster under, all those disperate (not desperate but that may well be accurate too) single issues campaigns unite for one objective (i think this what was envisaged by Marx rather than on structured organisation.) I see no reason why we cannot come togetehr in a common cause perhaps using the framework you set up yourself with World In Common as a prototype model or embryo of what can be accomplished. My final comment was a provocative aside that we have still a long way to go to become a class party and in the process of becoming one, we too must transform ourselves in many ways…"lead by example" …But sometimes the working of my mind doesn't correspond with the working of fingers on a keyboard. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

As to the difference, one no doubt is the one Robbo raises (but he would, wouldn't he!), but the more important one is that he does what Vin says we should avoid (and which we do avoid) of painting a "money-free society" as a nice, ideal society that can be established without class struggle and revolution.

 Just by way of confirmation , here is Nick (Tapping's) response to a question I raised on their FB sitei definetly think there is loads of room for collaboration Robin.The difference really is small but subtle…. language being the best part of it, and religious and spiritual tolerance being another part.How does the SPGB feel about collaborating with an organisation that has essentially the same aim and is apparently critical of TZM for much  the same reason that the SPGB is?   And what form might this collaboration take which could turn out to be mutually beneficial? Perhaps that's something else this Special Conference could also address….

[ALB]

Just seen this from a past Minutes of Kent & Sussex Branch:

Quote:

iii) Money Free PartyA member had asked for clarification about this organisation and if there were any similarities between its aims and the party's. A brief discussion ensued in which it was explained that the party's position was based on class analysis and materialism and not on idealism. Money would only become redundant with the ending of exchange relationships once the minority ownership of the means of production had been converted into the common property of the whole of society.

They are a registered political party with the Electoral Commission.

[alanjjohnstone]

You are right that we must review our relationships with possible and potential allies. BrianJ did sterling work with TZM, and Paddy too went on their internet radio channel. We haven't been totally passive and inactive. We visited Occupy St Pauls…But perhaps ALB should have taken his sleeping bag and tent alongI also think we have to reconsider how we communicate with the many reformist organisations and groups…and that, too, has to do with the language we use. It is not a matter of agreeing but in what way and how we disagree. Nick mentions it, you mention Howard Pilott and i would include Mike Foster's replies too, as well as Danny's human/humanity touch in his way of talking. We can drop the language of the socialist lexicon but i think we should use it where applicable…horses for courses.We have changed…non-party speakers…debates ecoming friendlier forums…intervies in the Standard…these can be built upon…A guest column in the Standard, for instance, to stimulate debate?As for me joining Facebook…sorry, i avoid using it and Twitter too.

[alanjjohnstone]

So ALB does that mean we are now to be hostile to MFP? No, i don't think we have sufficient reason to be. As i stated quite clearly, that hostility should be reserved solely for pro-capitalist parties or those parties with tactics that are anti-working class and undemocratic.  I think i read somewhere that if a situation arose that there were two socialist parties , the task would then be to talk it through, both parties make an accommodation and merge. My judgement is that such unity is premature simply because it won't have any great effect or influence on thingsHowever, if i was an isolated local member who was nearer and found it easier to get to MFP or TZM group than a SPGB branch i think i would become a regular attender and, dare i say it,…help them out in practical ways …while all the time arguing the SPGB case for what KSB rightly describes as a failing…but what i would not treat as some deadly transgression. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Just seen this from a past Minutes of Kent & Sussex Branch:

Quote:

iii) Money Free PartyA member had asked for clarification about this organisation and if there were any similarities between its aims and the party's. A brief discussion ensued in which it was explained that the party's position was based on class analysis and materialism and not on idealism. Money would only become redundant with the ending of exchange relationships once the minority ownership of the means of production had been converted into the common property of the whole of society.

They are a registered political party with the Electoral Commission.

 This explanation might possibly be quite misleading, in that case, because Ive definitely seen something on the MFP site which argues that what we really need to get rid of is private property which underlies the use of money. If so, this would call for a reassessment of what this organisation actually stands for and that it is much closer to the SPGB than might be imagined

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.It would be appreciated if someone could start a thread on the MFP.  I expect Nick Tapping to join us shortly.

[alanjjohnstone]

First, i think he should read this whole thread so that everything can be placed in context with him and present a clear perspective of where people are coming from. We are no talking about MFP in isolation but as part of our post-mortem on the election and how the party should respond. For the moment i believe it still relevant to the topic which is a reappraisal of our image and presentation. As Vin suggested we can get down to specific topics and discuss them singly but i think it is a case of when it is appropriate and it doesn't pull away from all the related subjects.   

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So ALB does that mean we are now to be hostile to MFP? 

That wasn't the point I was making. It was that, unlike Zeitgeist, they had at least seen the need to organise politically.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

How does the SPGB feel about collaborating with an organisation that has essentially the same aim and is apparently critical of TZM for much  the same reason that the SPGB is?   And what form might this collaboration take which could turn out to be mutually beneficial?

Do they accept that a revolution by the working class against the capitalist class is the only way of  removing the need for money?  

[Anonymous]

Actually I checked their website against our declaration of principles, not related.  

[Author]

Posts