Tory Legislation on ‘Extremism’

[SocialistPunk]

YMS,We're not talking about the first world war and the restrictions it placed on SPGB propaganda. The thread is about a British government potentially using its powers to attack revolutionary political organisations today. Revolution would by most Tories be seen as an extremist stance and to advocate revolutionary overthrow of the status quo could be deemed treasonable.I don't think it will happen, but like I said previously, history has a way of repeating itself.JDW made a statement along the lines of, whether democracy or dictatorship, it would be business as usual. I said a hostile dictatorship would destroy the SPGB quite easily, meaning its members being either locked up or in an extreme case executed for treason.My point is, if the SPGB constantly alienates itself from the "left", there will be no support should it ever be required. Sometimes you gotta step into the firing line, or else risk being left at the back of the room trying to get heard above the cheers for the ones who took a hit. In other words who gets the recognition, who gets remembered by the future revolutionaries?I'd be interested to know what the SPGB membership numbers were before the first world war, compared to now.

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

If this government tried to use such legislation to hammer revolutionary organisations, would the SPGB stand on the sidelines waiting its turn, or stand with other revolutionary groups to resist? After all, there are those on the "left" who agree with the goal of the SPGB/WSM, but disagree with how to achieve it.

Which "revolutionary groups" would they be then?  I know of none, at least not within these shores.  For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it.

Gnome,Do you honestly think that in order to consider yourself to be a socialist, you have to agree to using a parliamentary route? You say "For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it". Meaning if it isn't done by the parliamentary route, it isn't socialism.If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?I believe ALB once said that he expected the SPGB to be but a small part of a socialist revolution, suggesting the SPGB are not the beginning and end when it comes to socialist ideas and how to achieve them. 

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

gnome wrote:

Which "revolutionary groups" would they be then?  I know of none, at least not within these shores.  For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it.

If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?

Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully?   Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.

[alanjjohnstone]

Apologies for my fading memory but could someone inform me of the result of the party poll regards participating with our party banners in certain events alongside non-socialists (and even anti-socialists) such as May Day and could they refresh my memory on the wording of that relevant  poll question.  

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

gnome wrote:

Which "revolutionary groups" would they be then?  I know of none, at least not within these shores.  For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it.

If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?

Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully?   Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.

The socialist majority will decide how they wish to bring about socialism. If they decide not to use the parliamentary route the SPGB advocate, so be it. People can still (and do) organise on a democratic basis without participating in state democracy.You haven't answered my first and most important question.

SocialistPunk wrote:

  Do you honestly think that in order to consider yourself to be a socialist, you have to agree to using a parliamentary route?You say "For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it". Meaning if it isn't done by the parliamentary route, it isn't socialism.

But I can answer it for you. The SPGB does not have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament or its equivalent in other countries.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I don't suppose they'd be interested any more than us in petitioning the capitalist state not go ahead with legislation for which the government has just got a mandate

So the party advice to the trade union movement for the upcoming anti-union legislation, also part of the Tory manifesto, is that the working class voted for it – so lump it.Do not challenge it, particularly by your trade union sponsored MPs in Parliament, especially not legally through international courts and above all obey the law and and do not resist it, especially no form of any industrial action that challenges the authority and the power of the state…and from now on and until the law is repealed or amended (by another capitalist party) trade unionists will conduct all their strikes in accordance with the law….no wild-cats…no mass picketing…no flying pickets…The SPGB will support you only on what we deem are sound lines thus we accept for all practical purposes the proposed legal definition of what is a lawful and democratic ballot and withdraw that support if such is trangressed by a union…No. i am putting words into your mouth, aren't i?Within the trade union movement we are fully willing to work and co-operate with non- and anti-socialists for the sake of the interests of the working class as whole in its fight against capital and to ensure we reach a satisfactory share of the surplus value we create. We do no cast aside our party identity when we join with fellow-trade unionists. Yet by engaging in the same manner over the different issue of  freedom of political organisation and expression, we baulk at such a position because it would mean the end of the party's existence, and according to Gnome, there are only 380 genuine real authentic socialists in the UK…of which none exist outside the party or even in other organisations that call themselves socialists which they may have joined. If need be we could reach a compromise …the usual SWP/SPEW one…whenever they present their party line as an individual member of the union or whatever they announce they do so in their (personal capacity). Can we have a SPGB member on a shared public platform being identified as SPGB but advertised as doing so as an individual and not officially representing the party ….not according to our clearly defined rules. As i keep saying, i fully support critical support to certain working class actions and our task is to make that criticism effective. Political abstention, i suggest, is not the best way of gaining an audience. It is the reason we took part in elections …to be heard. Finally to again ask…In 2003 when a million marched,  would our advice have been…stay home and watch tv, instead…or would our critical support be suggesting a one-off protest march is tokenism and to succeed or even come close to prevailing, many more such marches and other actions are required but above all that success will still be qualified…it may stop this war but will not end all war.   

[alanjjohnstone]

Brand on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOe_4zxQCI#t=313

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought this contribution by YMS on another thread was of interest to this and i think very much related reformism and reform thread. 

Quote:

Quote:The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act.  Substitution not allowed.  The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do?  Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way?  Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'?  It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The socialist majority will decide how they wish to bring about socialism. If they decide not to use the parliamentary route the SPGB advocate, so be it. People can still (and do) organise on a democratic basis without participating in state democracy.You haven't answered my first and most important question.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Do you honestly think that in order to consider yourself to be a socialist, you have to agree to using a parliamentary route?You say "For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it". Meaning if it isn't done by the parliamentary route, it isn't socialism.

But I can answer it for you. The SPGB does not have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament or its equivalent in other countries.

I've no real need to answer your "first and most important question" since you've answered it for me.  Very kind and considerate of you; ever the democrat.The SPGB may not "have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament" but you've failed miserably to present a cogent (or any) argument as to why the SPGB is incorrect.When a majority, actively demanding and working for socialism emerges, it would be folly for them to leave control of the state, with its armed forces, in the hands of supporters of capitalism. That would be to leave a potential weapon in the hands of the opponents of socialism. Certainly, with the spread of socialist ideas even amongst members of the armed forces, it would be a somewhat blunted weapon, but one still capable of inflicting some harm. So, it would be dangerous to take the risk. Better to use the fact of being the majority to take control of the state via elections and parliament, if only to neutralise the risk. But there is a more positive reason for winning control of political power. The state is an instrument of coercion, but it has assumed social functions that have to exist in any society and which have nothing to do with its coercive nature: it has taken over the role of being society’s central organ of administration and co-ordination. Gaining control of the state will at the same time give control of this social organ which can be used to co-ordinate the changeover from capitalism to socialism. Of course, it couldn’t be used in the form inherited from capitalism; it would have to be reorganised on a thoroughly democratic basis, with mandated and recallable delegates and popular participation replacing the unaccountable professional politicians and unelected top civil servants of today. Neither should it be overlooked that, if some pro-capitalist minority should be so unwise as to resort to violence to resist the establishment of socialism, it will be an immense advantage to have control of the social institution with the power to employ socially-sanctioned force. Once any threat of this sort has disappeared (fairly rapidly, I would think), then the state can be dismantled. The armed forces can be completely disbanded and the centre of social administration and coordination can be thoroughly democratised.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

We're not talking about the first world war and the restrictions it placed on SPGB propaganda. The thread is about a British government potentially using its powers to attack revolutionary political organisations today. Revolution would by most Tories be seen as an extremist stance and to advocate revolutionary overthrow of the status quo could be deemed treasonable.

And my point was our response would likely be the same as the previous times our propaganda activity was attacked by the state: we'd decline to die futile heroic deaths, and continue to publish articles on the Battle of Thermopylae, or whatever it took to stay on the side of legality.I forgot to mention, this was the overall outcome also of our Special Party Meeting on comrades being beaten up in Africa.https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/search/messages?query=SPM%20African%20Safety(Don't know if that link will work, it's actually an interestign discussion, and an early example of trying to use an E-forum for party purposes).

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So the party advice to the trade union movement for the upcoming anti-union legislation, also part of the Tory manifesto, is that the working class voted for it – so lump it.

 I would have thought the British Trade Unionst would receive the same support as the Polish TU. The Class Struggle in Poland – A Socialist Statement The Socialist Party of Great Britain applauds with sympathy and admiration the courageous stand of the Polish strikers in their struggle to independently organise and negotiate over their wages and conditions. Their action bears out what we have constantly claimed and what no amount of repression, censorship, and pretence can indefinitely conceal.    Socialist Standard Dec 1980    

[alanjjohnstone]

My Message #35 

Quote:

we begin with study groups, reading groups, discussion groups that become part of wider general movements for union and political rights. We shouldn’t jump into the deep end without considering the concrete conditions of the place and of the time.

Quote:

I say if you can't organise as socialists, then don't. Do whatever it takes first… I do not consider socialist principles binding in places where they are inoperable… In places such as Burma, for example, where there is no movement for democracy, but only terror, I would if I had the power adopt more extreme measures, and I wouldn't be particularly impressed by WSM members telling me how unsocialist I was.

PaddyS on the link provided by YMSNot exactly identcial view but i think there exists an overlap between the two positions (i was not a member of the SPGB at the time of this debate on Africa and have read very little of it and i have no intention of commenting from retrospect on it)  Again to emphasise YMS interpretation of the Communist Manifesto i previously highlighted and that i also concur with  

Quote:

It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

Even our party comes second sometimes in priorities in the broad sweep of history…hard to accept for some members but we aren't exactly essential and necessary for the development of socialist ideas and the establishment of socialism….the world will still go on without us just perhaps in a slightly different fashion…thats historical materialism, that we proclaim adherence to, isn't it? 

[ALB]

Quote:

So the party advice to the trade union movement for the upcoming anti-union legislation, also part of the Tory manifesto, is that the working class voted for it – so lump it.

You're right, Vin. This passage does not express the party position on trade unionism. We've always said that workers should organise into trade unions and should defend the right to strike. Here for instance is the start and end of a leaflet we put out in 1971 headed "The Right to Strike!":

Quote:

YOU ARE RIGHT to demonstrate your opposition to the government's Industrial Relations Bill which is designed to restrict the right to strike. As long as the means of production are owned by a privileged minority, either privately or through the state, the strike will remain an essential weapon to defend the living standards and working conditions of wage and salary workers.Industrial organisation and action, including the proper use of the strike weapon, has the general support of THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Under capitalism all workers must organise in their places of employment to resist the pressures exerted by their employers, often with the backing of the government. This resistance is an essential part of the class struggle between the owners and non-owners of the means of production which is built into capitalist society.The LIMITATIONS of STRIKE ACTIONBut industrial action is basically only defensive. It is limited by the fact that in the end employers can usually depend on the support of the government and also by the lack of a full understanding amongst most workers of the real nature of the class struggle.(…)POSITIVE ACTIONTHE   SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN   urges   you, therefore, to look beyond militant trade unionism and to consider taking action to establish a classless society in which people would not have to work for wages and strike to get a living, but would have free access to what they needed in accordance with the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".As Marx advised trade unionists in Britain more than a hundred years ago: "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'."

This was why I said that the proposed Tory legislation to further restrict the right to strike was a more immediate and relevant danger to the interest of the working class than their proposed legislation against "extremists" which, as others here have pointed out, is not aimed at nor realistically likely to be used against us. 

[Young Master Smeet]

TBH, as some have pointed out, the current rail strike would be legal under the proposed changes (in fact, I think it would be counter productive, because it means when strikes do come, they will be bitter and determined, rather than the current gentlemanly dance we have at the minute).  I think the main thing is, like the ever present threat of taking away the license fee of the BBC, it's a stoick to wave and get compliance, more powerful if not effected than it would be if it were…

[alanjjohnstone]

Nor was it intended to represent party position but a rebuttal of what i perceived as the tone of "legalism", ALB, in your reply . i thought i made it clear by my comment. 

Quote:

No. i am putting words into your mouth, aren't i?

In regards to the three examples of existing legislation i mentioned, mass picketing, flying pickets, unofficial action …and one i forgot…secondary solidarity strikes…i have engaged in them all and even though they were illegal under the statute laws, only threats by the employers and warnings from the police ever occurred. To actually have taken action against us would have provoked the situations even further rather than calmed it. …but that was a judgement call by the bosses and the State…Today, it could well be different and probably would be…But they had the law on their side…even if they declined to apply it…and always have it in reserve…The decisions to use them are not for political parties such as us but for those engaged in the industrial action, to weigh up the consequences of their actions as they see fit. I think we should be prepared to offer unqualified support in regards to the actions i have cited and not insist that they follow the law. We came close to crossing that line when we suggested that the miners should have held a national ballot rather than the forms of regional  and pithead decisions they chose to make.   

[Author]

Posts