Tory Legislation on ‘Extremism’

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

So, 'Producers' Councils' (which everyone else refers to as 'Workers' Councils') will be the political form, not parliament. That is position 2, which I outlined above. You don't share it, and remain wedded to position 1.

 Perhap a bit of clarification: What do you mean by 'producers councils' in a socialist ssociety. What sort of 'power' will these councils have?  

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I can't see how we can (or do) say that going through parliament is the only possible way to socialism. It's the obvious, the easiest, the least messy, and the most openly democratic way to do it and that's why we advocate it and criticise those who say we should ignore or try to by-pass the state. 

And refuse to give any credence to what was postulated here, for example.

Socialist Punk wrote:

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.

  (Emphasis added)

[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.

[SocialistPunk]

I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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?

And your reply.

Gnome wrote:

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.

Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).

[SocialistPunk]

We have gone off topic a fair bit, but it's an interesting and worthy discussion. Any one any idea if there is a thread that we could take this over to? Or is a new one required?

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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?

And your reply.

Gnome wrote:

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.

Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).

1st warning: 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.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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?

And your reply.

Gnome wrote:

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.

Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).

1st warning: 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.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

We have gone off topic a fair bit, but it's an interesting and worthy discussion. Any one any idea if there is a thread that we could take this over to? Or is a new one required?

There probably is a thread but seeing the disagreement seems to be over 'the necessity for quantifying support for socialism' I strongly suggest you start a new thread on that theme.

[alanjjohnstone]

All I have to add to this debate on means and methods is that given all our different histories over widely different geographical areas plus the varying make-up of the working class, we will have different conceptions of our immediate needs and interests, and of which problems it is most urgent to solve. We will also disagree over the best ways to organise decision-making at workplaces, in localities, and globally. All these disagreements will lead to political disputes within the working-class that we hope and expect through intelligent engagement and exchanges will become united in solidarity across the world.I tend to be now fairly flexible and elastic these days in my socialist “principles” and again to paraphrase Howard Pilott on the Daily Politics Show I welcome diversity as it spurs discussion and debate, firstly within our own party and then further afield on the Left. I possess a strong confidence in the strength of our Party's  theory even if i may have less conviction in it actually prevailing.  I have emailed a tentative proposal to the campaigns committee that we try to act as a catalyst for all the vying "cases for socialism" to be brought together and presented to the public for them to choose from….which i believe is a practical way of putting LBird's "democracy of truth" to an actual vote.  

[SocialistPunk]

Found this amusing spoof.http://newsthump.com/2015/05/14/tories-accidentally-ban-themselves-under-new-anti-extremism-laws/However, believe it or not, this quote by Teresa May is real.

Quote:

Theresa May told BBC Radio 4 Today the government wants to "bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society".She said: "What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values."But it will be part of a bigger picture , a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths."The measures, she added, will focus on "extremism of all sorts… that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society, that is seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802I've highlighted the obvious flaw in what she says. She obviously doesn't recognise that her government have been promoting division in British society.http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people

Quote:

The government's focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country's biggest disability groups have warned.Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes.While the charities speaking out – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded.At the same time, they say, the focus on "fairness for taxpayers" has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who don't contribute.

This from a more recent article.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551327/EXCLUSIVE-Hate-crimes-on-disabled-rise-by-213

Quote:

Last year 574 disability hate crime cases were recorded, compared with 183 in 2007/8. However, Stephen Brookes, of the UK Disability Hate Crime Network and Disability Rights charity, said the figures were probably much higher.He said: “I believe the number of people actually suffering is equivalent to the number who report religious and race hate crime each year – 60,000.”Former director of public prosecutions Ken MacDonald last year said the police and CPS regularly overlook the crime despite “lots and lots of cases involving disabled people being abused, injured, or murdered”.A CPS spokesman said last night the body launched a Disability Hate Crime Action Plan in 2014 to tackle the issue.

And last but not least, (sorry for the long post). http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tax-avoidance-schemes-used-rich-5166327What did Teresa May say the government wants to do? "bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society". Uhmm….something doesn't quite add up. I wonder what it could be?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

With the socialist revolution, the state goes  – immediately  –

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position and as you know a position opposed by both Marx and the SPGB. A conference resolution in the 80s  or 90s went against our D of P and was later corrected – I think. But I agree that gaining control of the state is essential. 

 Sorry, but I cannot go along with your reasoning here, Vin.  To me it makes no sense at allIn the first place. it is nonsense to claim that  the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy  The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate.  You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly,  if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule.  The existence of the state implies the existence of class society.  In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token  therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated.  This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society.  I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society.  I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney.,  I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it.  It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the adminstration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited. There is no way round this, Vin, except to called for the immediate abolition of the state  along with class society following the capture of political power. In my view, some members of the SPGB are rather confused on this point.  It is notable that the two branches that were expelled in the 1980s for the their undemocratic behaviour also took the same position as you seem to do – that the state will "wither away" rather than be immediately abolished.  Their position is closer to a Leninist position than that of revolutionary socialists.  Lenin merely took up Marx's incoherent comments on the concept of the DOTP and took then to their logical conclusions – state capitalism!  Far from the state withering away it was enormously strengthened and reinforced One final observation – on this idea of converting the state from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation..  The only acceptable interpretation of this in my book is that once the state has been captured much of the machinery  of asministration inherited from the capitalist era will continue to exist and be adapted in a socialist society but in no sense could one impute to this the existence of a state as such ( and therefore class society).  The administrative machinery built up by the state will continue to exist in some form but not the state as such. I think it is absolutely crucial to recognise this distinction…..

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The measures, she added, will focus on "extremism of all sorts… 

 Which is why I draw attention to the proposed legistlation. Some members seem to think we are not 'extremists', which I find amusing.We are not reformist so does that mean we niether support nor oppose legislation that could shut us down.  

[SocialistPunk]

Well there's no doubt in my mind that what we here advocate is definitely radical, so the SPGB and other revolutionary groups could potentially be seen as extremists.It all depends on what the government, even local authorities want to use the law for. As we've seen in Britain laws intended for dealing with the threat of terrorism have been used for far, far less serious issues. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.htmlOnce such laws are in place, they're there to stay and can be called upon whenever required. Today it's Islamic extremism, tomorrow it could be socialist/communist revolutionaries.If there's a call to arms to condemn and protest against the legislation, I strongly suggest the SPGB roll up its sleeves and muck in.

[alanjjohnstone]

Let us remind ourselves once again of that "bastion" of democracy, the USA.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_syndicalismThis law is frequently cited as partly the reason for the decline of the IWWYet, on the otherhand, the SLP often quotes Article V of the American Constitution as a safeguard for a peaceful socialist revolution. 

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

Which is why I draw attention to the proposed legistlation. Some members seem to think we are not 'extremists', which I finding amusing.

That wasn't what we were saying. We were pointing out that, although we could in theory be legally classified as "extremists", this proposed law was not aimed at us and was not at all likely to be used against us.Passing a law is one thing. Implementing it is another as public opinion has to be taken into account. This proposed law is aimed at Islamist extremists and will be able to be implemented because there is widespread public support for it. That widespread support does not exist for using it against the likes of us.Denounce it? Why not? As it's aimed at "non-violent extremists" it is an infringement of the principle of free speech which we have always upheld.Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia". And remember of course that the Islamist extremists if they got power wouldn't simply ban us; they'd behead us.(Even so we defend their right to say we should be beheaded, but drawing the line at them actually doing it.)  Best leave this sort of thing to Liberty. That's what they're for.Incidentally, it appears that there is also opposition to it within the government itself and the civil service:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11622552/Theresa-Mays-proposal-to-censor-TV-was-opposed-by-cabinet-colleague-leaked-letter-reveals.html

[Author]

Posts