[Bijou Drains]

I think you could argue that there are strong parallels between the way Stalin operated and L Bird operates. (and no, L Bird, that doesn't mean you are a Stalinist, just that there are parallels.)What is clear from some of the passages above is that Stalin (or his ghost writer) was able to pose as a Socialist and a Democrat in terms of what he wrote, however the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what he did in practice is obviously somewhat different.In a similar way  L Bird talks extensively about the need for Socialists to be anti-elitist, yet as soon as anyone disagrees with him he accuses them of being fools, morons and clowns, of being his intellectual inferiors and not being worthy of taking him on in argument (I have been target of L Bird's elitist ire on many occasions)In his words L Bird is an anti elitist who deplores the Bolshivik approach, in practice he is demonstrably elitist in his tone, his manner, his uncomradely style of argument, etc. The term hypocrite comes to mind.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Hang on a minute Bob, he was being sarcastic!

still hearing the voices then, eh Bob?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

..".The author, who did actually interview a few members, had to concede that

Quote:

members certainly do not appear to be aggressive or misfits or in any way eccentric.

obviously didn't visit us lot up here in the North East!

[Bijou Drains]

An aspect of cults, and of leftist movements, not mentioned in the article, is their use of language. A common thread of cultish organisations is that they make use of obscure language and phrasiology that is used and understood, in the particular way that it is used by the group, only by members of the group.What this does is give exclusivity to the conversation, creating a sense of ownership and of belonging, that excludes non-members. You can see examples of this in groups such as the Freemasons, youth gangs, etc. etc. however in cult groups the language and the ideas create a particular world view, that can only be expressed through the use of that language style and only understood by someone who is familiar with the language.This creates a unique frame of reference for the members of the cult and as well as excluding non -members from the cult, it also has the opposite effect, members of the cult cannot converse, other than using the cultish langauge and therefore they are unable to communicate effectively with non cult members.In my view you often see this kind of disconnect when members of the SWP are speaking to the general public. Because they can only converse in stock phrases and cliches, supplied by the leadership, they come across as unnatural and weird, a bit like Dave Spart in Private Eye.One of the great things about the SPGB, in my opinion, is that we have never really developed that kind of "in crowd" way of communicating, either in the written or spoken word.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

ALB wrote:

Meanwhile in another part of Brixton ….http://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/the-cult-next-door-bbc2-documentary-tells-story-of-brixtonbased-cult-the-collective-and-leader-a3450966.html

I watched 'The Cult Next Door', the level of delusion was staggering – in particular, Josephine Herivel who still supports 'Comrade Bala'.

Funnily enough I get told regularly that I'm a complete cult, at least that's what I think they're saying.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

We're in favour of free speech because its the best environment for achieving socialism. Just as there are fringe royalist restorationists under capitalism, I expect historical ideas never to completely disappear.

Small wonder this was met with a 'wow'. Does anyone out there have the faintest idea of what the second sentence means? As for free speech, there is nothing 'moot' about it. The SPGB at one time adhered to the argument in J S Mill's 'On Liberty'. Read that and you will get the idea. Latterly however, a less tolerant atitude to free speech has emerged. At a Delegate Meeting it was argued by a Party delegate that should he meet a  member of a  racist party selling literature the delegate would ask him, 'if he repudiated racist attacks and if he didn't ( the delegate would) try to prevent him selling.' Intolerant and potentially suicidal. Have you seen some of those members of white nationalist organisations! The tactic is that which is usually associated with the Anarcho/Bolshevik Left and a departure from the old SPGB's willingness to defend its case against the defenders of capitalism, no matter how unsavoury, with reasoned argument in open discussion.

Just because a party delegate states a view, this does not make it party policy, you have not made a case to say that this has become the approach that the SPGB has ever used.The Bolshevic/Trotskyist argument of physical force toward fascists, is not only dangerous, it gives the racist/fascists a chance to take you on at something they might have a chance with (fighting) against something they have no chance with (logical argument).The view put forward by the alleged delegaate to ADM, is certainly not my view or my plan for action, or the view of the party.I agree there is no moot point about free speech in the SPGB.As to the existance of political parties in a socialist society, I think it perfectly feasible that people will organise in groups to put forward particular viewpoints on how socialist society shoud run. I think, for example there could be fierce debate between those who favour more environmentally friendly production processes and those who are less bothered about those things. I can imaging there would be parties or grouping that might form around single issues, such as th dvelopment of transport infrastructure (prehaps pro rail groups and anti rail groups) and no doubt there will be other issues about matters such as the use of resources in areas such aes health, etc.

[Bijou Drains]

Hi Major McPharterIt was good to se Clifford and he passed on his regards to NE branch comrades. We had a little time to chat about the old days. It looks like we may have a debate possibility with the Corbynistas in March. Clifford indicated that he would be keen to come back for that event. It would be good to get a big turn out to reignite NE based activity. Would you be able to make it?CheersTim

[Bijou Drains]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I blame Mike Pence and the 'pro-life' position being in fact all about being 'anti-women' and stopping women controlling their lives.

All our problems are socially produced, they are not produced by an individual

that's not what "my beloved" would say. According to her all of her problems are caused by a single individual, me!

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Unfortunately Yunus, the erstwhile leader of the vanguard of the revolutionary working class got lost and couldn't find the building,

Thanks, but it doesn't strike me as being unfortunate that there wasn't an SWPer alongside Clifford. Just the opposite. Good thing he didn't turn up !

My use of the work unfortunately was meant to be ironic. I agree that Yunus' absence was a boon for us, I was however looking forward to Yunus and Clifford crossing swords again, it must be close on 28 years since they were last going hammer and tongs at each other at the Monument in Newcastle duing our weekly paper sales.

[Bijou Drains]

Hi AdamA very interesting night was had. Visitors were restricted, so only two attendees were there who were not part of the Durham University Union, myself and a friend. There were supposed to be three speakers from each side of the motion, the motion being that capitalism has failed. The three speakers who were to independently put forward their case that Capitalism had failed were supposed to be Harry Cross (labout Momentum) Yunus Bakhsh (from the SWP), and Clifford Slapper, representing the SPGB. Unfortunately Yunus, the erstwhile leader of the vanguard of the revolutionary working class got lost and couldn't find the building, good job it wasn't him that was sent out to find Winter Palace in 1917 As a result Clifford had the opportunity to speak twice.Opposing the motion there was a Madsen Pirie from the Adam Smith Institute, Rory Broomfield from the Freedom Association and a student member of the Liberal Society, whose name I forget.There were about 200 attendees.The speaker from the Labour Party put forward a fairly sound analysis of some of the failures of capitalism, followed by a predictible recipe of Bennite solutions to the issues, state control of industry, price control, higher regulation etc. The speakers against the motion (pro capitalism), trotted out the usual descriptions of what their fantasy of capitalism is, including a quite bizarre contribution from Madsen Pirie about the famous Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, which he somehow imagined had some bearing on the progressiveness of capitailsm, along with a decription of how capitaism was an improvement on feudalism, therefore we should all be gratetful that we weren't living in medieval hovels. He put forward the idea that in capitailism inequality took the form of the rich having Rolls Royces and the poor having Fords, The rich having Caviar, the poor having Cod roe. He somehow had overlooked the 1 million people in the UK who have the choice between food from a food bank or starvation. There was an extraordinary claim from Rory Broomfield that because all of us own some form of private property therefore we all are capitalists (I didn't know that having a pair of trousers and an Auf Wiedersen Box set somehow put me on a par with Bill Gates) and that in capitalism we all have choices about what whisky we drink and where we drink it and that therefore capitalism was a good thing.Clifford Slapper spoke twice, summing up the case against capitaism very adroitly, putting forward the party case and contrasting it with the approaches of both the pro capitalist and the pro state capitalist arguments. His contributions drew solid applause from sections of what appeared to be a rather affluent group of post graduates.There was a brief question and answer session and then a vote was taken by filling through either of the exit doors to signify the voting choice. There was a rather comical moment toward the end of this process where Madsen Pirie had to be redirected as he was about to walk through the door for those those voting that Capitalism had failed, for someone who has supposedly had as much influence on government, I've got to say, he didn't strike me as the sharpest cookie I've ever encountered.The final vote was 105-93 for the motion, which I gather came as a bit of a surprise all round.  There was a chance to have a drink afterwards and several students were interested in the Party case, one or two knew of us and one in particular seemed to have a fairly strong understanding of our history and background.I managed to speak to Harry Cross and he seemed very keen to have further debate with the Party. I have provisionally arranged to set up a debate with him on the topic, "should Sociailists Support the Labour Party", sometime in March.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Swore blind it was him shot George Orwell. I can believe it. Always was cack-handed the old man. Six inches higher and we would have been spared Nineteen Eighty-Four.

if another shot he'd taken one night, in the company of your mother, had missed by six inches, we'd have been spared you!

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

ALB wrote:

Wittgenstein, Shitgenstein. Can't understand a word of what he wrote. Worse than Hegel. Maybe the Emporer has no clothes.

Wittgenstein lived for four years in Newcastle, where he worked as a porter at the RVI Hospital. Local Legend has it that he used to drink in the Trent House pub, which was a popular haunt of mine back in the day. Perhaps it was drinking all that Broon ale that made his writings so incomprehensible.

There is a poem by the local poet Mike Wilkin “Geordie Henderson replies to the biographer of Ludwig Wittgenstein” (Mugs Rite, Bay Press, 1996), :“Div aa knaa oot more / aboot him?Fella, arl else / aa remember, is that / the only gala time /aa got im near a pint, / knaaing he was a Delphi /Oracle, aa askt him / if the Magpies would ever /climb back to the Shangri-La / of Division One.And he wrote / doon arl magisterially /on a raggy beer mat / (which is clagged-up / in wor netty yet!) /“Whereof one cannot spowt / Thereof one must say nowt.” 

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Wittgenstein, Shitgenstein. Can't understand a word of what he wrote. Worse than Hegel. Maybe the Emporer has no clothes.

Wittgenstein lived for four years in Newcastle, where he worked as a porter at the RVI Hospital. Local Legend has it that he used to drink in the Trent House pub, which was a popular haunt of mine back in the day. Perhaps it was drinking all that Broon ale that made his writings so incomprehensible.

[Author]

Posts