Ed
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:I hadm't realise that all this is recent (this week). If we want to mount a publicity stunt we could offer to chair the debate between the MDI and EDL on our premises.That would be publicity both for us and for our stand against the Trotskyist censors and for free debate.
Oh wow THAT IS A FANTASTIC IDEA!!!!
Tom Rogers wrote:The idea of chairing a debate between the EDL and the MDI is a great one, though. Go for it. It would be especially interesting to see questions fired at them by SPGB members and very entertaining watching them squirm, as inevitably will happen when they face a rational and reasoning audience. Definitely one for the archive, if someone can film it.They would probably end up agreeing on certain positions
Thanks for those links Tom, very helpful. I've heard them issue a challenge a couple of times on talk shows and stuff a quick google search didn't bring up any of those I've seen. Earlier this year they formed an alliance with the British Freedom party so they are making a transition from being a pseudo street gang into the political arena. However, I've not heard too much about them since then and so I'm not as confident of the headline grabbing effect I originally thought a debate might have. But you never know unless you try and as I've always said the exposure the party can get from it will come down to how we handle it.
SocialistPunk wrote:Ed wrote:What we need is a sort of proletarian enlightenment, a sort of paradigm shift.I thought that was the historical self appointed role of the SPGB and companion parties? To educate, and in a sense be the agents (not leaders) of change, because it wouldn't materialize out of thin air?Was I wrongly informed all those years ago, or has there been a change in the way the movement views its role?
Class consciousness is not spontaneous, it does require a certain amount of education as the correct answers are not always apparent. However, revolutions are not made by people, they are made by economic conditions. Meaning that you can talk until you're blue in the face (or should that be red) but until people are compelled to look for change they are not going to listen. You can't teach people who don't want to learn.
SocialistPunk wrote:robbo203 wrote:A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left. Blank stares are all I got in return. I would refer to such a blank reaction as institutionalized thinking. An inability to step outside the framework of accepted rules and behavior and so being unable to see what the problem looks like from a fresh perspective. Inevitably the reaction to those who can step outside the structure and air their findings is negative, there will ensue a closing of ranks until the annoyance is neutralized. The initial dust will settle and business as usual continues.A scientific approach would be constant searching, testing and updating to find a formula that works, not repeating the same approach over and over again in the hope it will work.Again I appeal to other voices to make themselves heard. The decline can be reversed.Feel free to criticize, snipe, discuss, nit pick etc. It may eventually lead to progress. Hopefully!
I think we would all admit that we could be doing better but I don't think that the problem is the policy on religion and any argument for changing it should be based on theory not whether we would attract 10 more members. The fact is ALL political parties of all stripes have been hemorrhaging members for the last 10 years. People just don't join parties at the moment. And it's not about our politics as I'm sure you'll appreciate knowing the non-socialist view so well the fact that there is no clear distinction between us and any other political party for the uninformed. Now if the number of members were important we could of course use the SWP style of fabricating our membership they claim 7,500 but have about 1,200 due paying members. If we are generous and say that 50% of their membership have their dues waived but are active then their actual membership would stand at around 2,800. Now considering that they basically occupy the position of old labour compared to the socialist position which takes an actual shift in a person's political consciousness and a rejection of capitalism. I think if you compare the two we're not doing that bad.The faults with the party are more organizational than theorhetical in my opinion. For example from what I've heard the media department has been almost non-operational for a few years now and currently only has one member assigned to it. Now it's not that comrades fault, it's an immense job, too much for any one person. But the media department should be our largest and most active department with quite a few members sharing the work load. So who's fault is it? It's members like me who don't put in the work on committees, and perhaps, just perhaps socialists like you and Robbo who leave the party and then complain that not enough is being done. If you want more to be done and you want to see progress and want change the only way to do that is from the inside with your voice, your vote and your own action. Not from the side lines. The fact is that not enough comrades put themselves forward for these important positions so not enough gets done. If we want the party to grow then that's where we need to start not with changing our principles.I'm not sure if you've had the chance to view the schedule for the Autumn delegate meeting but there's some great proposals put forward about how to spread the party message more effectively, (not talking about mine) but about creating a film or even hiring a public relations company to assess where we could change to promote a better image. Maybe you won't like any of the ideas presented but if you've got better let's hear them.
ALB wrote:Basically, yes. But you could also question how likely it is "of one or a handful of countries arriving at this point earlier than the rest." We know that capitalism continues to exist not so much because the capitalist class control state power as because the majority of people are imbued with capitalist ideas. They don't think it possible to have a society without leaders or armies or buying and selling or working for wages. This view is widespread throughout the whole world.How likely is it when people begin to reject this that this will be confined to people in just "one or a handful of countries"? Not very likely, I suggest, especially as even now under capitalism ideas, music, etc spread very quickly from one continent to another.So, I think it quite reasonable to reply, as in the Questions of the Day pamphlet, that the situation is unlikely to occur but that if it did it would be up to the socialist movement at the time to decide what to do.I think the last couple of years have shown this to be the case. With the so called "Arab spring" inspiring occupy and protest movements within harsh dictatorships everywhere. The bourgeois certainly took the idea of revolutionary spirit spreading across the world seriously. With Iran and China taking a preemptive clamp down on possible uprisings. The spread of class consciousness and ideas also spread quickly and widely during the enlightenment era. Which in turn inspired Marx and Engels. What we need is a sort of proletarian enlightenment, a sort of paradigm shift.
gnome wrote:Ed wrote:Well what about the people literally dying from poverty not just in the third world but in the UK and the US as well.Not going all moralistic on us by any chance, Ed?
No not at all just pointing out that the BBC used imagery to reinforce their class interests. Also they were using the Camelot idea of 1950's and 1960's capitalism, like it was some golden age. Pretty sure there were plenty of people living in poverty then too. But then the BBC always do that and it really gets up my nose.
I just watched this; an utter load of shite. Didn't you just love how they were contrasting conditions of miners in the 19th century to a bunch of yuppies walking around the west end on their mobile phones. Basically perpetuating the myth that "we're all middle class these days". Well what about the people literally dying from poverty not just in the third world but in the UK and the US as well. Condescending crap
steve colborn wrote:To have a violent revolution is not immoral, it is just irrational. When a majority of workers want, understand and work to bring about Socialism it will happen. Remember the members of Capitalisms coercive arms are workers themselves, their families are. Do you imagine class ideas will pass them by? Leave no trace on their minds! To posit this is, irrational in itself.Can you answer that contradiction between immorality and irrationality ED?LOL I love how you start this with a subjective statement presented as fact.""To have a violent revolution is not immoral."Well to some people it is. Unless you deny that some people find violence immoral? Some people find violence so immoral, including violence against property, that they will actually use violence to stop violence. Remember the peace police in the occupy movement?The question you should be asking is does class consciousness manifest itself rationally and free of idealism? My answer to this would be clearly not. I think religious people can be class conscious, I think many anarchists are class conscious but not necessarily materialists I'm sure you can think of more examples.
SocialistPunk wrote:Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct?Most definitely YES.
SocialistPunk wrote:Does that mean you accept the human weakness of morality? If only I could write that in the style of a Dalek.Joking to one side. I notice you use the term "correct decision". The basis of morality is making decisions between what is considered right (correct) and wrong (incorrect) with regards to behaviour.So I suppose your "correct decision" could be viewed as moral.I have already covered this ANY decision can be described as moral…..even a correct one. However it does not mean that a correct judgement is true or false because it is described as moral. Describing a true statement as moral neither negates or validates it……because morality doesn't mean anything except perhaps as an endorsement from the person describing it as moral.
SocialistPunk wrote:zundap wrote:The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.I wonder if any one bleating on about self interest is aware of how it sounds to non socialist onlookers. It sounds like some of the concepts found in science fiction. The Borg spring to mind. To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do.I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding this issue. I believe Robbo said that we can have morality as well as socialism, the two can go together.Where is the problem?Does it have to be one or the other?Morality reflects cultural values, what is acceptable or unacceptable at a given time and place, morality is fluid. (I refered to that in a previous post). Who decides moral values, is I think where the problem lies. It is no accident it arose on a thread that originally discussed religious views.
That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?I mean many people might say it's immoral to have a violent revolution, but if it's the only option available then that's the way it has to be. Supplanting the rational for the sake of a subjective notion is idealism.
Robbo you’ve created an army of rather insulting strawmen if you’re no longer going to even attempt to debate I see little point in continuing.Calling me Randian is out of order and is quite ignorant. I saw a great article once from a former Objectivist who denounced Rand’s philosophy through the use of a scenario. I’ve quite clearly said that Self Interest = Class interest now Rand says that self interest is only bourgeois interest and then turns that into a MORAL argument.The scenario:You are on a plane with a few hundred people which crashes on a desert island. On this desert island there lives alone one man in a huge mansion surrounded by some fields and the only water source on the island which is all walled off from the rest of the island.You walk up to the gates and press the intercom and ask the man for some help.He says he will give you all some rations of water and some food if you all work the fields for him essentially becoming slaves. And if you don’t you will all starve to death.Now you only have 2 optionsyou can submit to being the man’s slave and try to cozy up to him to become his favourite in the hope that you can maybe gain a supervisory role and perhaps a larger ration of the produce.Or you can talk to the other survivors and together you can scale the walls kill the man and work the land together.Which is in your self interest?Taking the first option where there is only a small chance of success that the man will grant you a position of authority and a larger ration.Or recognising that your self interest is exactly the same as the other survivors and you can only be sure to get what’s in your interest by working together with all of them to defeat the man.Now Rand would say that the man in the mansion is completely morally justified in doing whatever he wants with the property and that the best interests of the survivors would be to respect the moral right of the man to own his property and submit to slavery and through hard work and servitude you should hope to earn yourself a better position with a view to becoming the man in the future. As it is immoral to take away someone’s property.The moral Nihilist position is that the man is neither justified or unjustified in using the property any way he sees fit. However, it is also neither moral or immoral to kill the man and take his property and that this would be the option which is in your interests as it has the higher chance of success.The scenario is usually presented as a moral question “is it right to kill the man and take his property?” and people for the most part choose the second option. Unless they’re just trying to be difficult. Those who deeply believe in a moral truth sometimes choose a third option which is death by starvation.I also need to take on another of your strawmen. I actually DID say that a moral statement can be true but cannot be true for moral reasons. We call these truth-apt statements. The statement may be true however it’s true for the wrong reasons. Like a pre-civilization man saying the world is round. He has no way of knowing whether it is round or flat or shaped like a banana. The statement is true but it is subjective opinion stated as fact. This is the same way that morality works.
