Ed
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Steve, personally I thought your statement to be a genuine and sincere apology and I'm sure others will as well.
ALB wrote:Ed wrote:Also I thought you wanted more free speech, do you want those on spintcom to be censored?My understanding of what Steve said is that, though he might not like some of what was being said about him, he was prepared to let the discussion on spintcom take its course without trying to interfere. In that case, let's continue the discussion amongst ourselves there, as the members of any organisation have the right to discuss who joins and who doesn't, hopefully in an objective a way as possible.
I am merely asking for clarification.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi EdWhat is it you want here? Are you goading Steve into an argument, even though he has stated he wants an end to the squabbles?No, not at all. I'm actually trying to help him. I haven't closed my mind to him rejoining the party. But then again I wasn't on the receiving end of one of his e-mails. What is needed more than anything to convince people that he is sincere is to take responsibility and to exercise a little humility. In my humble opinion that will help his case for membership.It's all very well to say put it behind us but obviously judging by spintcom that is unsatisfactory to many members.
Ah damn sorry meant to put this in the last message. You are also positing a tu quoque argument. Otherwise known as whataboutism. This would be used by the soviet union. When asked about human rights violations they would point to America and say well look at them they're not so perfect. The point being that you can only accept responsibility for your own actions and only address the issues that you are able to control, not the faults of your neighbours. You can say that there were mitigating circumstances that others behaviour drove you to act in the manner that you did, but I'd be careful not to blame everything on others. Also I thought you wanted more free speech, do you want those on spintcom to be censored?
I don't really see that as acknowledgement. What have you done wrong and why do you regret those actions? The way you've put it suggests more of a sweeping it under the carpet arrangement. If you can't specifically say what you regret how can members begin to assess whether you are sincerely remorseful and know that the behaviour will not be repeated. How about the abusive e-mails I've heard so much about. Perhaps you could start by sending a private apology to those members you feel you may have wronged, I think that would go a long way. Perhaps an open letter of apology to the membership at large.
If he hadn't resigned I think our branch would have seriously reconsidered putting forward a motion of action detrimental to the party. As his current stunt on Revleft is not the first time he's bad mouthed the party to anyone who will listen. There was I believe, a blog where he was saying we were all a bunch of homophobes and sexists. Taking out of all context an incident which occurred at summer school, through second hand information.I think if you want back in, you should begin, and this is my advice to both of you, by acknowledging the faults in your own behaviour. Expressing regret and explaining how you will keep it from happening again. At the moment I haven't seen either of you take responsiblity for your actions and at least one of you persists. I think this is the only way to win round, to borrow a phrase the silent majority.
You know the Chartists had a great motto which was later adopted by Marx and Engels "Peacefully if we can forcibly if we must". I think it's adhered to by most who consider themselves socialists. The difference between us and AFED and actually almost every other revolutionary group is that they say that a peaceful capture of the state is impossible. Yet they provide no proof to back up this assertion. So we will pursue the least violent method of revolution until such a time as it becomes actually impossible. Other groups think that the only option is either a general strike or a fully fledged civil war. Obviously in both of those options the ones who suffer most are the workers.
Alex Woodrow wrote:This is just an idea Steve but, wouldn't it be better for none of us to stand in elections?I mean correct me if I am wrong, but representative democracy is just pseudo democracy and if we, the SPGB, want REAL democracy, then surely it would be a better idea for us to campaign for a society without gods, masters and rulers, and instead have a society by where the people are in charge and there is direct democracy.At this stage the parties electoral activities are purely propagandist. We stand with the intention to make people aware of alternatives to capitalism, in other words to spread the message. It's also a great way to judge how many socialists there are in a certain area. Have you read the pamphlet what's wrong with using parliament?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament
So I think I read there's two forms A from returning members. One is obviously yourself Steve, the other better not be this guy http://www.revleft.com/vb/spgb-forum-purge-t180388/index2.html
For those not up to speed on meme symbology the SPGB one is the forever alone face. Which lets face it isn't so bad when compared with a bunch of capitalist parties.
Yeah it is horrendously cheesy isn't it. The Libcom one is much better but maybe the language could be simplified and I found the music a little annoying. I came across it while lurking on Revleft. For the record I was a supporter of getting outside help from an advertising company, but if that's the sort of thing we would get then it probably was a bad idea.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Well, obviously everyone is of topic so surely I will not be suspended for asking why a party member was allowed to launch a personal attack on me without receiving suspension.You call that a personal attack? You must have lived a sheltered life if you call that an attack. And since you continue to spread lies/misinformation/untruths/bullshit call it whatever you will, about me surely I'm the one who is under "personal attack" I would really like you to answer the question about how much responsibility you think you have for the situation on this forum which has been going on since October. Do you feel you are beyond reproach? Stop being so petty and for all our sakes please, please, grow up.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:The main goal of socialism is to put the interests of the working class above those of every other class (mainly the capitalists; i.e. the people who live off the labour of the working class) and in fact remove all classes alltogether. That is necessary because you are convinced that by doing so, society as a whole will benefit tremendously (although it would be obviously terrible for those who benefit from the current system).Why do you suppose it would be terrible for a former capitalist? There are in fact many benefits for the bourgeouisie and many examples of them betraying their class interest for socialism. Fredrick Engels being the most obvious, Peter Kropotkin although I suppose he was from an aristocratic background. Oscar Wilde was an interesting case and more typical of what I would expect from a member of his class. If you like idealism, individualism and moralism you may want to read The Soul of Man under Socialism. In it he makes the case for socialism not from the perspective of a class concious worker but explains how he sees it benefiting everyone.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes.It's very easy. Forced to work for a wage = worker. Lives off others labour or rent or capital = not a worker.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society.Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual).Class interest does not differ between individuals of the same class.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.).I can't agree that these are "moral terminology". If certain words evoke an emotional moral response from you then it is purely subjective. To me a term like slavery just means forced labour.Engels explains the difference between a slave and a worker quite adequately in the principles of communism
Quote:The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
