Special post-election conference on the party and its future
- This topic has 123 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Richard Osmaston is the man in NZ and yes we have good relationship..I have messaged him to say hello to the NZ crew.
Vin wrote:The Money Free Party and Zeitgeist are both Utopian. You cannot abolishes money as if it is a 'thing' capable of being abolished.The end of money will only happen through class struggle and revolution. The Utopian groups do not accept this. We need to root our 'key message' in class struggle and revolution and not the abolition of money..,,,,A revolution by the working class and the transformation of the means of production into the common property of all removes the need for money.Vin, I think you are being a bit harsh in your judgement. It has already been pointed out to you that the MFP explicitly states in its Website:The Money Free Party believes that to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity for all, we must all claim earth and its resources as the common heritage of all. In other words it too is talking in terms of common property of the means of production which, in turn, implies a class perspective – that current society is divided along the lines of those who have and those who do not have and that this is what the MFP wants to eliminate by calling for the common ownership of the world's resources Give them a little time and space to develop this side of their argument…. Nick has said the MFP differs from the WSM in its focus in that it concentrates more on the vision of a future society than on the analysis of existing society. Ultimately I think these things go hand and hand. and focussing exclusively on one at the expense of the other produces a lopsided argument.. But that also applies to the emphasis put on class struggle and revolution. If you bang on about that without explicitly acknowledging that the goal of such a revolution is the creation of a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth (I'm not saying you do), then this runs the risk of being perceived as being nothing than mere Leftism. A sterile political posture if ever there was one. I cannot count how many Leftists I've run into over the years who have argued that it is just "utopian" to argue for such society and that we have to be "realistic" and adapt our objectives to the current (non revolutiuonary) ideological outlook of the working class so as to gain their "trust" which say more about them and their cravenly conservative and vanguardist outlook than it does about anything else. Revolutionaries should not conceal from the working class the fact that what we want is to help bring about a society in which money will indeed cease to exist. I agree with Alan – rather than looking askance at what the MFP is saying, it is better to think of their approach as somewhat complementary to that of the WSM. I seriously doubt if push comes to shove that they would disagree with your point about class struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots" even if they might not couch this in quite the same language as you or I might use…
nicktap wrote:ALB, i do know Ray Carr but have been unable to contact him for some time, and got the impression he might be avoiding me?If the MFP and Ray Carr only disagree with us on language or on some issue of approach rather than principle, the solution is obvious: join us ! Come to think of it, so should Robbo.
Quote:If the MFP and Ray Carr only disagree with us on language or on some issue of approach rather than principle, the solution is obvious: join us !ALB, do we not change, do we not make any concessions or compromises…Or do we claim the mantle of being perfect?…If they believe our language is a problem, do we accept that it is true and try to make it different?In fact we have endeavoured to do just that with Capitalism and Kids Stuff which has been our most ambitious and most successful venture. MFP and others may well rightly ask why we did not continue with that tack.But can they convince us that such a change does make a difference in how we are perceived? What is the empirical evidence that dropping our socialist lexicon draws folk? Despite how we describe ourselves on the tin, won't our enemies label us socialists anyways. Unlike Zeitgeist , we cannot deny the charge and they only do so out of actual ignorance of what socialism is.Personally i see more is to be gained by describing ourselves as eco-socialists in todays political climate of climate change …and …adding an adjective to qualify our socialism is something we regularly do…"real" socialism…"genuine" socialism……"Marxian" socialism."free access" socialism .."Marxian" socilism…and of course "World" socialism so why not adopt the term eco-socialism more…lets hijack it from its mis-users…
Quote:the biggest difference between WSM and MFP is that MFP is more focused on describing and promoting the vision, rather than promoting an analysis of society.An analysis of society explains the whys which people will demand us to answer at some point…why should we have change…why is no money a better way…why is money used now…An analysis of society explains the whys. Promoting the vision i think can bear fruit when we are addressing individuals and challenging the myths of human nature being a hinderance. We can show the vision and the benefits for individuals and Marx often did this in his writings …how societal change creates the conditions for individual fulfilment. So describing a new type of society is not utopian but explains why it creates change in our individual behaviour and our individual relationships with one another. I always though Murray Bookchin and others understood better than us how capitalism reinforces such things as hierarchies and all the "isms" sexism, racism etc and they managed to convey that liberation from those through an economic transformation. I am well known on the forum for stating let a thousand flowers bloom, for urging diversity and variety in our message. Rather than simply say …join us…and so become just like us,…indistinguishable from us …Is there not a way we can acknowledge shared positions, shared goals and shared visions…and help one another to grow and expand and spread, separate but together. I earlier talked about the unnecessary duplication of effort…but is that always going to be a consequence of being different organisations…or do each concentrate on thier individual strengths… find the right soil for growth…and why should we not help add the fertiliser for another if it suits another rather than our own way…as long as it still on a journey heading the same way as ourselves. I have purposefullyand deliberately referred to New Zealand situation… I have heard said by some members if a stronger more effective socialist party emerged, they would join it ..it is the reasoning behind ALB saying MFP should join us, we after all are the more soild organisationIn NZ i hazard to guess that ALB's proposal that MFP join the SPGB would be reversed…the WSPNZ would be better being part of the MFP of NZ since they too may be still small but are more successful and with the most promise. Which raises other questions – Would we countenance actually presenting our NZ comrades with that suggestion for their consideration. …Would we still accept such a merged group to remain acceptable as a companion party. I recall…(and it was probably to avoid political persecution) that Gambian group was callred the Movement for Free Access (or something like that) so being named a socialist party isn't a requisite to being part of the WSM, is my point. Anyways, i hope the above gives food for thought to members and non-members…and i won't take umbrage at being shown how wrong i am. I simply exploring options and raising discussion…LBird will hate it …but like a scientist offering a hypothesis to be either proved as true or false (And to get to a personal bone of contention, ALB, about "joining us"…why the fuck have some of our own members failed, nay, refused, to join us on this forum and stuck to a redundant one…DUH…hardly an example of lead by example…)
ALB wrote:nicktap wrote:ALB, i do know Ray Carr but have been unable to contact him for some time, and got the impression he might be avoiding me?If the MFP and Ray Carr only disagree with us on language or on some issue of approach rather than principle, the solution is obvious: join us ! Come to think of it, so should Robbo.
Well , there is the little matter of the SPGB's blanket ban on religious belief. I'm not religious myself but I cannot in all honesty go along with the idea that holding religious beliefs is incompatible with being a socialist. Some form of (organised) religions clearly are but that is on account of their social policies. There is nothing about a belief in a god or an afterlife per se or some vague pantheistic notion of a "spiritual energy" that rules out one being a socialist and actively working for socialism which is all that matters in my book. And the Party's entry requirements are tight enough to ensure only socialists can join even without the anti-religious clause…. This is why I was quite impressed with Paddy's recent comments on the other forum. If and when the SPGB at least softens its approach on this matter or adopts a more discriminating approach towards religions, I will happily join as will, I think, quite a few others. Until then the SPGB retains my political support but as a non member. Incidentally so as not to stray too far off from the topic under discussion, I think that is the position of the MFP too if I'm not mistaken.
Yes officialdom and membership are quite archaic and controlling in nature.
After all we are working for the same goal, and our perceived differences are not the problem. the problem we face is getting public support.Vin,yes, I think there was an EC resolution that members of that group were welcome to join the party. Sometime in 2001, I believe.
I'm afraid we would be abandoning the first premise of our argument: The materialist conception of history by banging on about a vision of a future society without reference to the existing material conditions. I will repeat myself – as everyone else is – The working class needs to understand capitalism( and money) before it can abolish it. I am no historian but I believe I am correct that talk of and a desire for a moneyless society is pre-capitalist.This group is identical to the SPGB, have we courted them?socialiststudies.org.uk/ They give a good explanation of money and the necessary steps to ending it. (Which I stole from them above) Do we want to continue to give out the image of dreamers and utopians or do we wish to give out the impression of a non-passivist revolutionary, class based organisation.We have in the past concentrated too much on the vision at the expense of the need for a determined democratic revolution by the working class.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Vin,yes, I think there was an EC resolution that members of that group were welcome to join the party. Sometime in 2001, I believe.Thanks YMS, did any respond?
Vin wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Vin,yes, I think there was an EC resolution that members of that group were welcome to join the party. Sometime in 2001, I believe.Thanks YMS, did any respond?
Why would we want them anyway considering they are almost entirely composed of ex-members expelled in 1991 for persistent undemocratic behaviour? A trait which the remaining handful of individuals of that group retain to this day.For those who can be bothered and have access, there are some relevant items listed under 'Critiques of the Party' in the Spintcom files section.
gnome wrote:Why would we want them anyway considering they are almost entirely composed of ex-members expelled in 1991 for persistent undemocratic behaviour? A trait which the remaining handful of individuals of that group retain to this day.How long is their sentence? It seems a long time to hold a grudge. 24 years? I seem to remember they were expelled for ignoring conference resolutions. Obviously not an expellable offence these days.I seem to remember the same branches were split on more than one issueTho' it is that long ago, I can't remember. Was it around the same time as the move to get the party to adopt a policy of the immediate abolition of the state or was that a completely seperatre affair?.
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Why would we want them anyway considering they are almost entirely composed of ex-members expelled in 1991 for persistent undemocratic behaviour? A trait which the remaining handful of individuals of that group retain to this day.How long is their sentence? It seems a long time to hold a grudge. 24 years?
It was neither a sentence nor a grudge; the expulsions were not punitive. After almost three years of repeated attempts to resolve the impasse a majority took the view that persistent failure by the two branches to comply with democratic decisions constituted action detrimental to the interests of the party.Any or all of the individuals expelled could have re-applied to join the party at any time, subject to relevant assurances. None did. Instead the organisation they were then members of used every opportunity to publicly attack the party.
Oh the joy of it, "let ye without sin, cast the first stone" Halelujah Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OOps, expecting this post to be reported, wonder who it will be? By the way and in accord with the thread, what about those "rigging" the ballot, by ditching our leaflets? Thereby not giving their fellow workers the chance of a fair purview of an alternative?
Just so it doesn't go unnoticed, it is interesting that both video-talks linked to on the other thread were under the auspices of an organisation called People for Democratic Revolution, an organisation that are trying to present another approach of ditching the words socialism and communism as been referred as a possible strategy here. It also goes some way of incorporating Vin's concerns that revolution and the struggle against the ruling class are not fully addressed. It appears to be associated with New Democracy website and John Spritzler who some have criticised as being prone to various conspiracy theories but again there is a considerable overlap on core ideas. http://www.pdrboston.org/#!our-mission/ci9h
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.