ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Our candidate delegate is now up on brixtonblog too:http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-hill-by-election-danny-lambert-socialist-party-of-great-britain/9198I'm sure comrades will like the photo(s).The Tory and the Trotskyist are up there as well.
Mike Foster wrote:I understand that Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness is one of the definitive books,Lukacs wrote this in 1920 as a super-Leninist, arguing that the vanguard party embodied the "class consciousness" of the working class even if the actual working class weren't class conscious. A recipe for substitutionism if ever there was.
Brixtonblog is here: http://www.brixtonblog.com/Labour here.Green here.
There are two separate arguments going on here:(1) Does it make sense to talk of humans having "instincts" in their social behaviour (as opposed to their bodily reactions)?and(2) If we do, is an aversion to "race-mixing" one of them?If the answer to (1) is "no", then (2) falls. But even if (1) were to be the case, then (2) would still have to be proved.
A photo in a local paper may not tell anyone about what we stand for, but it will help tell people that we are standing and so is/can be publicity for this. Many people just scan a paper and look at the pictures and their captions. So if there are photos of candidates but not ours, even if text of the article explains why not, people would get the impression we're not standing. Of course a blank space instead of a photo would convey the same message, but it is unlikely that the editor would be prepared to go that far to accommodate us.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Posts are not being pre=vetted for content, nor are they editted/moderated for content,Nor are they edited for spelling either.
Here's the Report of the debate on this issue at the 1989 Conference:
Quote:V17 "That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that in future no photograph of the candidate appear on the election manifestos"(Glasgow).V16 Amendment to V17:"Delete the last word and replace with 'material'" (W London).V18 "That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that in future the election manifestos be addressed to 'Fellow Workers' and not to 'Dear Electors'" (Glasgow).V.Vanni (Glasgow), opening on his branch's two resolutions,said Glasgow considered neither saying 'Dear Electors' instead of 'Fellow Workers' nor putting the candidate's photo on the manifesto as being innovative or imaginative.H.Edwards (W London), on his branch's amendment, said the intention was to make the Glasgow resolution on photos more precise. On the other issue of laying down "Fellow Workers" as the only permissable form of address, the branch disagreed with Glasgow.R.Cook (Birmingham) complained about the phrase "instructs the EC to ensure". Why this urge to always have control from the top?S. Coleman (Islington): whether or not the photo should appear was a matter of principle, though not of primary principle. So if the Party voted for it, he would accept it, but the Party had not voted for it and Swansea should have waited for Conference to decide before experimenting on this matter. Why should we always have to say "Fellow Workers"? What was important about what we had to say was the content not the form of words employed. It would be ridiculous to have to use this particular form on all occasions and under all circumstances.B.Johnson (Swansea): the Party can exclude photos from its manifesto but it can't stop the media insisting on a photo to accompany any statement they might want to publish from us. Once again, this was an over-reaction to an experiment and before it had been completed. The Party must be prepared to experiment, allowing flexibility in the light of local conditions.G.Hewlett (Camden): a photo couldn't help put over our case and was in fact quite irrelevant to it.H.Young (non-delegate): the change from "Fellow Workers" to "Dear Electors" was a concession to ignorance and prejudice and was reformist —S.Coleman (Islington): Point of Order! Under Clause 15 of Conference Standing Orders Comrade Young was not entitled to refer to other members as "reformist".S.Easton (EC Member): we didn't have to first approach everybody as "workers" if only because most people wouldn't know what we meant by working class. Nor did photos mean a personalised campaign.E.Goodman (EC Member): the objection was not just to the photo, but also to the personalism represented by the use of 'I'. On the other issue,Glasgow were being too strict in trying to stop innovation. After all, our message was also addressed to capitalists.K.Knight (non-delegate): capitalists could indeed join the socialist party, even in their own interests, as to avoid perishing in a nuclear war. But there was a distinction: we didn't need their support whereas we did need that of the working class, so we must address our appeal to the latter.D.Donnelly (Glasgow),winding up, said the resolutions were not an appeal for things to be controlled from the top, but an instruction to the committee which manages our affairs between Conferences not to use photos. We must control our own literature even if we can't control what the media do.The amendment(V16) to the first Glasgow resolution(V17) was carried 99-39 and the resolution, as amended, was then carried 98-49.The second Glasgowresolution(V18) was lost 69-73This means that there is an absolute ban on us putting the candidate's photo on the election manifesto or on any other material we produce for an election. But it leaves to the discretion of branches whether or not to supply a photo to the press if requested.So, what we are arguing about here is not whether or not a Conference Resolution has been infringed but about whether or not it is opportune to supply the media with a photo if requested. Scottish branches seem to take a harder line on this than London ones.
We've got an obituary for Castro on the stocks. It looks as if we should be preparing one for Chavez too. As they both claim to be socialists, and have considerable influence on critics of capitalist society in Latin America and elsewhere, we have some interesting things to say on both.
Tom Rogers wrote:In practice, the evidence from multi-cultural societies is that one racial group tends to dominate another. Of course, because you do not recognise 'race' as a valid term at all, to you multi-culturalism is simply the co-existence of different cultural groups, whereas to my mind, multi-culturalism is simply a code word for race-mixing. You then state, ""Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolvd cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end." It follows from what I have just stated that this is also wrong in that multiculturalism is not just 'multi-cultural', it is also multi-racial, with different racial groups existing within the same geo-political space. All the evidence from where this is tried is that one racial group tends to dominate over the other – South Africa is one example.This confirms what I suspected — that what you object to is "multiracialism" rather than "multiculturalism"., i.e to "race-mixing", just like the erstwhile rulers of the Old South in the US and of South Africa under apartheid.South Africa is not a good example for you. For a start, the "blank majority" does not dominate over the others. The vast majority of "blacks" in South Africa are dominated by an elite drawn from all the groups you consider to be "races". And the "blacks" do not compose a homogenuous bloc, but are divided into cultural groups with which they identify with more than with the rest of their "race". Finally, what "race" do you place the "Coloureds" in? Or do you think they are a separate "race".Assuming that you still consider yourself to be socialist (perhaps you no longer do; it doesn't sound like it) how do you reconcile your views on "race-mixing" with the fact that socialism will be, in your terms, a "multi-racial" society, probably more so than today? If, as you claim, "races" have difficulty in getting on with each other how will socialism deal with this "problem" supposed by you?
This article has been translated into French and is online here:http://www.critique-sociale.info/704/eric-hobsbawm-historien-et-leniniste/
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I cannot see why this resolution should not apply to party forums.Well, yes, of course it does and, also of course, there are procedures for doing so which members need to follow.Sorry, Moderator, for veering off topic but I wanted to reassure JonD that members are entitled to criticise and work to amend or rescind any Conference Resolution and more. What they are not entitled to do is to not abide by it in the meantime.
Of course the Party must act in accordance with Conference resolutions, but here it's a question of what a Conference Resolution means (and has been interpreted over the years as meaning).I don't know, JonD, where you got the idea from the members can't argue against a Conference resolution with a view to getting it reversed or changed. This goes on all the time. There's even this Conference Resolution from 1973 (I hope it doesn't set the cat amongst the pigeons):
Quote:This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.Thanks. I see I did remember it more or less accurately, though I forgot how embedded in Class War's analysis is their three-class view of society. It was the conclusion that was good:
Quote:Multiculturalism claims to be the solution to the oppression and discrimination within capitalist society. In reality it is a deeply conservative elitist ideology concerned above all with dividing our class against itself in order to best ensure the ruling classes continued domination.Ironically, Class War's distinction between a "middle class" and a "working class" also "divides our class against itself".
Tom Rogers wrote:Can I take it, then, that you do not consider race to be a social construct afterall? Otherwise, I think your position is self-contradictory.No you can't. That's why I put the word "race", "racial" (but not racist) in inverted commas.
Quote:I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.and
Tom Rogers wrote:The truth is that multiculturalism is simply part of the ideological justification for capitalism. Societies of mixed race suit those who have rootless utilitarian attitudes. I would say that the working population in Britain is politically-weaker than ever today and this is partly (though not wholly) due to multiculturalism (i.e. the acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous).What is this? A party political broadcast on behalf of the BNP?I'm against "multiculturalism" too, but for the opposite reason to you. But, first, multiculturalism is not to be equated with ""acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous". Nor is it to be equated with the simple existence of different cultures and cultural traditions, which anyone (whatever the "race" you would put them in) can share. Different food, different music, etc. That's a good thing which I'm sure will still exist and flourish in a socialist society. I imagine you don't eat in Indian restaurants or listen to reggae music."Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolved cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end. I'm opposed to it on the ground that it encourages identity politics instead of class politics. As was well explained in an article from Class War in 2007 which can be found by typing "cowley club" + "class war" + "multiculturalism" into a search engine (perhaps someone can find an easier way of accessing it. It's from the Summer 2007 and entitled "Multiculturalism — The Newspeak of the Left Cop".)You appear to share the concern of some pro-capitalist apologists that multiculturalism is proving couter-productive from their own point of view in that it encourages members of cultural groups to identify with their group rather than with "the nation" or "the country" and are beginning to think that the French government's policy of assimilation would be better. But that might not be good enough for you as it still accepts that the population of Britain would still be what you call "racially-homogenous" and would not discourage "race-mixing".
I already explained that this resolution refers to election material we produce ourselves. It arose from a case where a branch put the candidate's photo on the election manifesto. The 1989 resolution repudiated and banned this. Photos have been supplied to local newspapers both before and after this 1989 resolution.For what it would have looked like if we hadn't provided a photo, see here:http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/index/lgcl_council_government_and_democracy/lgcl_elections/nonlgcl_election_results/lgcl_districtparish2011_results_district-2.htm
