SPGB – never heard of them
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Then what are the SPGB doing wrong? Is it something other parties are doing right?
I think we misuse and take to the extreme:1. 'It is the case not the face'2. 'Hostility Clause'3 'Guilt by association'That's a start Oh, and defensive responses to suggestions that we just may be doing the wrong things
If they are using Merriam-Wbster they are certainly not being exposed to our interpretation of socialism
Quote:a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies Full Definition of socialism1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.Usage Discussion of socialismIn the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as “democratic socialism,” in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.Examples of socialismShe is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, “it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.” —Stephen Pollard, New York Times Book Review, 18 Jan. 2009Lenin's great genius, of course, was for ideology, which was redefined all too often to support the tactical requirements of the moment. But owing to his fanatical conviction of his own righteousness, especially where socialism was concerned, and also to the Promethean force of his will, his pronouncements were enshrined by his followers as universal truths. —Michael Scammell, New Republic, 20 Dec. 1999My point in posting was i thought it was interesting that someone who had become politicalised to what he considered to be socialism had not heard of us, much less the full socialist case, but felt that SPEW and SWP represented the ideas of socialism. Our concept of socialism shared by those anarcho-communists at Libcom was something he did not associated with "real socialism" but as an anarchist utopia.Our SPGB history of socialist thought has described how our objective was shared by many but our means of achieving it was not. What has happened is that our goal is no longer recognised as such by those who call themselves socialist these days. Even Trotskyists have forgotten the aim of what their mentors taught,
Quote:"…money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption – whether by money or administration – will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody! Such a time has not yet come, though America will certainly reach it before any other country. "https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htmAnd James Cannon
Quote:But after a certain period, where there is abundance and even superabundance, the absurdity of strict wage regulation will become apparent. Then the gold will be taken out of Fort Knox and put to some more useful purpose, if such can be found. When people will have no further use for money, they will wonder what to do with all this gold, which has cost so much human labour and agony. Lenin had a theory that under socialism gold could be used, maybe, to make doorknobs for public lavatories, and things like that. But no Marxist authority would admit that in the socialist future men will dig in the earth for such a useless metal. The accounting arrangements automatically registered by money wages based on gold will at a certain stage be replaced by labour certificates or coupons, like tickets to the theatre. But even that, eventually, will pass away. Even that kind of accounting, which would take up useless labour and be absolutely purposeless, will be eliminated. There will be no money, and there will not even be any bookkeeping transactions or coupons to regulate how much one works and how much he gets. When labour has ceased to be a mere means of life and becomes life’s prime necessity, people will work without any compulsion and take what they need. So said Marx. Does that sound “visionary”? Here again, one must make an effort to lift himself out of the framework of the present society, and not consider this conception absurd or “impractical”. The contrary would be absurd. For in the socialist society, when there is plenty and abundance for all, what will be the point in keeping account of each one’s share, any more than in the distribution of food at a well-supplied family table? You don’t keep books as to who eats how many pancakes for breakfast or how many pieces of bread for dinner. Nobody grabs when the table is laden. If you have a guest, you don’t seize the first piece of meat for yourself, you pass the plate and ask him to help himself first. When you visualise society as a “groaning board” on which there is plenty for all, what purpose would be served in keeping accounts of what each one gets to eat and to wear? There would be no need for compulsion or forcible allotment of material means. “Wages” will become a term of obsolete significance, which only students of ancient history will know about. “Speaking frankly”—said Trotsky—“I think it would be pretty dullwitted to consider such a really modest perspective 'utopian’.” The ethic of capitalism and its normal procedure, of course, are quite different. But don’t ever, dear comrades, make the mistake of thinking that anything contrary to its rules and its ethics is utopian, or visionary, or absurd. No, what’s absurd is to think that this madhouse is permanent and for all time. The ethic of capitalism is: “From each whatever you can get out of him—to each whatever he can grab.” The socialist society of universal abundance will be regulated by a different standard. It will “inscribe on its banners”—said Marx—“From each according to his ability—to each according to his needs.” I speak now of the higher phase of socialist society, which some Marxist authorities prefer to call communism.I can find similar descriptions of our aims in Hyndman and Keir Hardie and others…all forgotten now…and our objective reduced to the Merriam-Webster definition.
Quote:The term, "Webster's" has become a generic trademark in the U.S. for comprehensive dictionaries of the English languageSo there would be nothing stopping the party setting up a "Websters dictionary" website with our own definitions of terms. Google Pagerank would need to get us near the top in which case you might as well increase our Google ranking with the normal website anyway.
Before interviewing Howard on Daily Politics , Andrew Neil pointed out that the party restricts its membership to those who can pass a test on its policies and principles and said that if mainstream parties did this they wouldn’t have any members.I would add this as a reason why we are small to my list in #16. but this is something we should never change.
One thing that might make us stand out a bit more would be for us always to use the term 'world socialism' rather than just socialism when talking about our case. In the Standard, in interviews, in debates, in conversations, at elections. It immediately takes things to a different level and it's really what we're about. Ok, it might conjure up images of a world government but at least it would emphasize the global aspect and differentiate us from the nation-oriented rest.
rodshaw wrote:One thing that might make us stand out a bit more would be for us always to use the term 'world socialism' rather than just socialism when talking about our case. In the Standard, in interviews, in debates, in conversations, at elections. It immediately takes things to a different level and it's really what we're about. Ok, it might conjure up images of a world government but at least it would emphasize the global aspect and differentiate us from the nation-oriented rest.yep!the world socialist movement (SPGB)
Sending information to celebrities would be a positive thing to do, not because they are celebrities per se, but on the chance they might see fit to mention us. And even if people then contact us because they are celebrity-worshippers, it would give them the chance to know about us and learn more and hopefully propagate socialism after they have long ceased to be celebrity-worshippers. What harm can it do? Wouldn`t you send socialist material to anyone else? So why not someone of high profile? If there`s a chance of spreading our message we should make use of it, and celebrities reach a wide number of people. Those who are only then interested because of the celebrity would soon leave anyway.
Not that many celebrities reveal either their private postal or personal e-mail addresses so i think it will be quite a daunting challenge for whoever attempts this project. The Media Committee however has already collated a large number of email addresses for press releases. Perhaps concentrating on people in the media may be more feasible…but risks accusations of spamming. But we could devise a press release that covers broad ground, something like "We are still here, the UK's oldest existing socialist party and never gone away even though you keep ignoring us and wish us dead and gone" sort of thing.Too soon for a New Year circulation but what about Ist of May…a Mayday statement press release …plenty of time for text and to choose what links to offer…Various different messages could be sent if the Media Comm. list is broken down into areas of interest…environment…industrial…education…whatever… I think that is more do-able and just as ambitious – meaning by that – volunteers dedicating themselves to doing it and putting in the time and energy…Something we haven't too much of as we get reminded…it's always the same shoulders that carry the burden of party activity. But i'm sure if we can get a few new volunteers not already too busy and who have internet connections, they can take on this delegated task and give them the time-table to complete…Mayday…we can leave them to it and trust it is completed …It isn't too complicated i think …just time-consuming…which is why i think it shouldn't be the present media committee…they should be kept busy elsewhere by the EC…
I offered sometime ago to do this in an official capacity, I also offered the EC to produce a party video but was turned down and ignored by committees. I accept it maybe because they are undermanned themselves and I was not the flavour of the moment.The way you contact an organistion these days is by tweeting to them or message them on facebook. using memes and videos . If your laptop breaks down you tweet HP for an immediate response. You can let the Gurdian editorial what the party thinks with a tweet. MEME?200 words? I have been doing this for sometime as Vinnie with a certain degree of success. To the main media outlets etc. For example, the Party name and objective reaches thousands via our official account. @officialSPGB The party's official twitter could send multiple 'press releases'Perhap an 'internet media committe' with the authority to make short statements and press releases. via internet. The statements can be perhaps written by mmembers with specialist knowledge and passed on to official twitter/facebook accounts
ALB wrote:The half-emptiers do have a knack of choosing counterproductive thread titles ….I feel very positive. This could prove to be a very positive thread. The half full brigade tend ignore the possibilities believing the glass is full enough
alanjjohnstone wrote:The Media Committee however has already collated a large number of email addresses for press releases. Perhaps concentrating on people in the media may be more feasible…but risks accusations of spamming. I think that is more do-able and just as ambitious – meaning by that – volunteers dedicating themselves to doing it and putting in the time and energy…alanjjohnstone wrote:..but risks accusations of spamming.Why should we give a fuck? We are trying to dispossess the owners ffsWe need to act like a revolutionary organisation. The 1904 members will be turning in their grave with embarrassment.Let the ruling class tremble….We have nothing to lose. The capitalist government is only a means to an end
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.