[Ed]

That’s a good point about California ALB. It is the 5th largest economy in the world or something if it were independent,. If we were to look at perhaps not class consciousness but revolutionary consciousness or for examples of class struggle then California would certainly be the capital of discontent in the US. With groups like the Black Panthers, Weather underground and the setting up of communes in the 60’s and 70’s and presently they had by far the most advanced Occupy movement based in Oakland. While we can’t call this class consciousness workers there do seem to look for alternatives to capitalism. However, that’s where the need for an actual socialist party comes in to be able to supply those workers with the right tools to actually fulfill their potential.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I was inspired to start this thread by something Ed posted.

Ed wrote:

I’m saying people are more angry by what they’ve lost than what they’ve never had. It’s always been the case that higher material conditions resulting from the most industrialized societies are more likely to produce class conscious workers.Past movements have failed mainly due to lacking a class conscious majority and were led by a minority of class conscious people. So they didn’t know what they were fighting for. But there’s no one reason for me there’s loads of reasons reformism being one. But if there had been a class conscious majority reformism would have been unnecessary. (after the means of production had reached a level which could sustain socialism)

It is why I asked, if a large proportion of the worlds workers have not had decent material conditions how would we persuade them that socialism was in their best interests?Ed never did reply.So, alanjjohnstone, thinks that the UK despite its history of working class struggle would be a late comer to socialism, yet Ed thinks that industrialized nations (presumably like the UK) will likely be the first, but only if they suffer a decline in material conditions.If I have misunderstood any body I apologize and please put me right. I just think it important these issues are explored fully every now and again.As a point of relevant interest, does any body know which country has the largest socialist party?

Sorry mate I thought Robbo had answered it quite well that’s why I didn’t reply. I’m not sure I would say the UK would defintely be first but I think it would probably be one of the first. It could just as easily be any large advanced economy. I mean the prime example should actually be the USA, but they have a lot of other things holding them back. But then again it would take a massive change in social opinion which doesn’t exist anywhere at the moment. Massive changes in in social norms can happen really quickly. If we look at the 20th centuary and changes regarding race, gender, sexuality and religion attitudes have shifted greatly over a relatively short period of time because of material conditions people had to face namely two wworld wars. So it is possible to see a huge shift in popular opinion over a short period of time, I see no reason why class conciousness would not spread in the same way except it would be even quicker given that the world is far more connected due to technological advances.

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa- although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favoring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for

That’s a big concession because if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true. I must say I am surprised that you chose nepotism as your example of a moral truth.. Rather than it being a moral choice to favour ones offspring could this not be a case of perceived best interests? I mean it’s hardly objective, half the people I grew up with were being kicked out of their family homes while they were still at school. Dumped on social services at worst or put up by friends families if they were lucky. There’s also the rather ghoulish tendency of some to look forward to relatives dying due to the inheritance. 

robbo203 wrote:

However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me.  What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society  that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be .  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behavior.  It is this code of behavior that we are talking about when we refer to “morality”

But you’ve just said that there is no right or wrong. I see this as a contradiction or not following through with the logical conclusion. If there is no moral truth then all moral judgments are based on fallacies. What people do claim are their morals amount to no more than asserting an opinion.”murder is wrong” this is a subjective statement presented as fact by a person who is presupposing that there is a moral truth to murder being wrong. It is however based on a fallacy and so must be incorrect. All the statement is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”. Now it may be a true statement for material reasons that people should not kill each other but the way it is presented makes it a fallacy. This also means that in the context of moral socialists (which I think was your original point a few pages back) that people can be motivated to be socialists on moral grounds (and in my experience the vast majority of socialists are). However, that motivation is not based on a material position it’s based on a fallacy. So they are correct but for the wrong reasons. They can of course correct this by learning socialism from a scientific perspective.

robbo203 wrote:

We are all socialised in one way or another and to a lesser or greater extent into accepting of internalising this socially sanctioned code of behaviour.

In other words social construct (implying subjectivity)

robbo203 wrote:

You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say,   deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely, overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself.

This presupposes that the old lady is not Margaret Thatcher. If it were I don’t think I’d feel guilty and I’d probably never have to buy another drink for the rest of my life. So no I’d be quite pleased in certain circumstances. But you also presuppose that I am acting in an irrational way. For what reason am I attempting to run down this old lady? Surely I must have a reason for my actions based on material reality rather than behaving in a completely random manner. And if it were an accident then it would be irrational to proportion blame on myself since by the fact of it being accidental.

robbo203 wrote:

This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relativesIn this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. PeriodAre you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses

So what you are calling morality I call acting in perceived self interest. Now when I said self interest before you started thinking ZOMG Stirner, Rand, Individualism this must be evil. However as we are indeed social animals our interests are linked and cannot be separated. If something negatively affects one of us it can have far wider implications affecting all of us. So it is in our best interests to prevent harm and negative impacts on one another even if it does not affect us directly. However, as I feel I’ve demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality. So people may act in their best interests and say it’s a moral act but as I said the action may be correct but not for the right reasons. The real reason they are doing something is due to their own perceived self interest.Moral Nihilism is simply saying that morals don’t exist and explaining why. It’s not promoting a view where everyone should go out and murder each other.

[Ed]

I think in such a situation a form of councilism could be used while simultaneously dismantling the state apparatus. Currency could be abolished pretty quickly throwing the international bourgeois into chaos giving workers in other countries a greater chance to seize their states. And then depending on whether it’s necessary another medium of exchange could be implemented. If after 10 years only one country had managed to seize that state I think we would have to admit defeat.But as Alan says it is crystal ball speculation and hopefully we’re right in saying that class consciousness is internationally linked.

[Ed]

part quote is the quote button at the bottom right hand corner of the post. in between edit and reply I don’t know how to multi quote

[Ed]

steve colborn wrote:

Y TERMS!OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITYThe difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objectiveand provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to beproduced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and soare always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion,e.g. a newspaper headline might state: “Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area”. This is presentedas an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.An objective piece of information, therefore, needs either to be the whole truth and at least be unbiased orbalanced, whereas a subjective point of view is biased because it is either not the complete picture or it ismerely a viewpoint or expression of feelings.When studying literature, it is best to be objective when you consider a text’s qualities. Of course, literatureread for pleasure should be approached subjectively as this allows you to ‘be there’ with the characters, feelinginvolved with the plot and so forth. But when you discuss literature for an essay, it is far safer to ‘stand back’and see it objectively for what it is: no more than an attempt to engage and hold your attention, build trust inits writer, and persuade you to a way of thinking – the writer’s way!Looked at objectively, a text is no more than a ‘vehicle’ for communicating a persuasive message. This applies tocharacters and settings, too – all highly compelling and believable ‘vehicles’ for the writer to convince you tothink his or her way!

I pretty much agree with thisbut then how do you conclude that morality is objective?

steve colborn wrote:

Morality, class ad nauseum, is not subjective but objective. We, as human beings do not decide our position in society, it is without our remit.

steve colborn wrote:

One can claim to be, MIDDLE CLASS, but this is our subjective view of our place in society. Our class is not ours to choose, it is decided for us by our relationship to the means and instruments for producing the things we need to live.

Social class is a classic example of a social construct rather than a socio-economic one. Thus rendering it a completely subjective term as compared with the socialist definition of class which can be defined as an effect of capitlism making it an objective term.

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

Of course morality is a “social construct”.  Thats not the point though, is it?  I’m not denying morality adapts to changing material conditions. The point that I am making is quite  different.  I’m not so much concerned with the content of morality – the particular notion of  what is or is not morally acceptable = as with the fact of morality itself   You are constantly confusing these two things. Human beings are social animals and there is no such a thing as a society that does not have some kind of code of behaviour. In short,  a morality. – whatever form that may take,   If you think there is such thing as an amoral  society then show me the evidence.  It would be a truly remarkable find in the world of anthropological researchYour claim that The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law is I’m afraid, complete bollocks.   Are  you seriously trying to suggest here that pre-state societies – like hunter gatherer band societies had no sense of morality, no code of conduct which differentiates between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable behaviour? .Conflict resolution in such societies admittedly tended to be radically decentralised involving often only the affected parties but in even the most extreme cases it is easily possible to show social mechanisms loke socialisation  for the conveyance of group opinion on the morality of certain acts such as manslaughter and often as not the parties involved in a dispute would key into group motions of morality to justify their own stance.  The group opinion is always in the background

I’m obviously not being clear enough so apologies for that. There is no right and wrong, something can be right in certain situations and wrong in others depending on the material conditions effecting the decision. So if there is no right and wrong there are no moral truths. Any argument based on morality presupposes that there is a moral truth since that cannot be it is bound to result in a fallacy. I’m not arguing for amorality since that also presumes that there is a morality.You on the other hand seem to be saying that morality is best practice. There is certainly best practice and some of which is shared almost universally while other parts are purely subjective. Best practice can be anything but it is the accumulation of experience based on actual results, a crude form of science. For example when I wipe my arse I neatly fold the tissue paper, I find this way uses less tissue paper than scrunching it up in a ball. Now this isn’t a moral decision, that is best practice I’m not saying scrunching tissue paper in a ball (or any other way) is wrong. It’s just not as effective as the other method. This can be extended to anything I don’t call for reforms to capitalism, since it is proven not to be best practice in achieving the results I need. I don’t go around killing people as it is not in my interests to do so, I have witnessed what happens to other people who have murdered and so do not want the same to happen to me. Although if the situation called for it then I’d have no objection to it.Morality differs because it says at any given time that something is either universally right or universally wrong.Pre-state societies developed best practice, I think it will be hard to prove either way if they had a sense of morality.

robbo203 wrote:

But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism?

I’ll just dust off my crystal ball. I would hope that humanity could transcend past using such logical fallacies as morality and I see no reason why the concept should not disappear in time (may take a long time though).

Ed wrote:

ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

robbo203 wrote:

Your position it seems to me is one based old fashioned 19th century positivism.  Things exist only if they can be apprehended through senses. Yes?

No, it’s 21st century Moral Nihilism (No, Young Master Smeet, not like the Hells Angels) specifically a branch of error theory called fictionalism. The best written source would be Richard Joyce’s Myth of Morality. But for the record I arrived at my views independently and so are not exactly the same but that’s probably the closest you can get.

robbo203 wrote:

Of course by this token capitalism does not exist. Have you ever smelt tasted touched or even seen capitalism?  Of course not .  Capitalism is a construct just as morality is a construct and therefore, I suppose,  “not real.”  The working class is not real either.  Nor society and I take it as a naive empiricist you would accept Mrs Thatcher’s claim that there is no such thing as a society only individuals and their families

No capitalism can be observed, defined, recorded and measured. It is a socio-economic construct not a social one; there’s a big difference.

robbo203 wrote:

And yet, according to you, despite this thing called morality  not existing  it is conspiratorially used by the ruling class as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”..  How something that is non existent can have such a discernable real -world effect on the “lower classes”  (assuming these exist too  which by your empiricist logic dont seem to) is to put it mildly, baffling

It’s only existence is as an idea thus idealism. A fallacy used to stop people acting in their own interests. You might as well have said that it exists by the fact that we are talking about it.Can you provide an example of a single moral truth?

[Ed]

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism”

Morality is the expression of ruling class interests. Anything can and has been be justified morally, murder, rape, slavery, genocide anything you like. It is then used as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life. On an individual level morality is very rarely the same as anyone else and thus can not be measured in any objective way. It’s also mostly bullshit anyway, what people will say that they find morally acceptable they’ll happily break without batting an eyelid. And that is the real point socialists who think they are acting on moral grounds can quite easily change their mind when they find something morally wrong.

robbo203 wrote:

Everyone has a moral point of view –

Most may have a moral view but not all, but what is that view other than an idealist fantasy?

robbo203 wrote:

you wouldn’t be human otherwise.

Tell me more about this human nature and the natural law of morality…………

robbo203 wrote:

Its not peculiar to the ruling class alone.  That just ridiculous. Oddly enough having started out claiming that morality is the expression of ruling class interest you then end up saying it varies from one person to another.  You cant have it both ways, you know,. If morality is so variable as you say then to put it down to being the mere expression of ruling class interests is a tad misleading, don’t you think?This naff reductionist argument crops up in the Communist Manifesto, too  “Law, morality, religion are…so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. The basic  argument seems to be that ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class So if people tend to talk  in moral terms this is obviously a ruling class conspiracy to use morality “as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”. It does not seem to occur to you that not all ideas are ruling class ideas – unless, of course,  you think socialist ideas are also  the expression of ruling class interests . Just because people talk in moral terms does not mean they are faithfully reflecting the ruling class outlook into which they have supposedly been “socially conditioned”

Morality is a social construct. It has no fundamental truth other than what the individual assigns to it. The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law. The individual can have a view of morality seprerate from that of the state but more or less bound to the state’s definition of right and wrong, which in most cases supercedes their own interests in the favour of the ruling classes interests. Either way it’s an idealistic approach which we are taught.However, you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is some sort of fundamental truth to morality which we all share. Coming back to the law, it is an accumulated process of ruling class interests making up the stick with which to beat the subjugated classes with. It is altered whenever there is a change in the material conditions of the ruling class. For example, you know what the earliest recorded English law is? 6s for punching a man on the nose. The second is 50s for murder. The third is 50s for seducing the Kings slave girl. So murder is equatable to sex with someones property, the property being in this case a human being. Ain’t morality wonderful! By today’s standard the two are not morally equatable to the vast majority and as the state has no interest in legally maintaining slavery so to changes the law. So tell me if there is a fundamental shared morality why has it changed to reflect ruling class interests. Why do we not feel it is right to keep slaves now but we did a few hundred years ago?I’ll repeat a point from my first post ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

robbo203 wrote:

Heard of the concept of hegemony BTW.  I find all this talk of the…ahem … “lower classes” being socially conditioned into accepting their lot in life rather disempowering and misleading.  Its projecting the view that we are mere putty in the hands of our rulers. Its reinforcing our sense of our own impotence. I just don’t buy this argument, frankly.  Quite often its the opposite  that is the case – the ruling class being socially conditioned into accepting the ideas of the “lower classes”.  This for instance is the case with populist  type governments where politicians pander to the prejudices of the electorate.

And are the electorate acting in their class interests when the politicians cede to their demands and are the politicians acting against theirs?

robbo203 wrote:

Your analysis is too simplistic

Your’s seems naïve

robbo203 wrote:

I did not say you would become a capitalist if you strove to become one did I?  There is no comparison between what I’m saying and what  Gina Rinehart is saying.  Of course the chances of you becoming a capitalist are absolutely minuscule but thats not the point,  is it?

Yes it is the point. You said why not become a capitalist. If the chances of becoming a capitalist are so small as to be almost non-existent then what’s the point? It’s not in my interest to chase an impossible goal.

robbo203 wrote:

The point is that if you want socialism for no other reason than that it is in your self interests then you might as well forget about socialism in that case because if its self interest that motivates you would be better advised to strive to become a capitalist  (or even just a better paid worker).  Whether you will become a capitalist is another matter entirely, obviously

If you think that the world will become class conscious as the result of their love for their fellow man then you are seriously deluded. What other reason could they possibly have other than the realization that our own self interests depend on each other a.k.a their class interests.

robbo203 wrote:

You claim to ” recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”. Well it wouldn’t be –  would it?  –  if you what you are adopting here is a purely “instrumentalist approach” to the rest of your class. If you see them as simply a means your own selfish ends then clearly it is not true that your self interest is linked to the rest of your class.

Except that their interests are the same as mine and the only way we can achieve our goals is to pursue our shared interest together.

robbo203 wrote:

Ironically you more or less admit this yourself  when you say Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour.  What you saying here is that the realisation of your self interest in the form of running your own business would actually demonstrate that far from your interests being “inextricably linked to the working class” those interests  would actually be opposed to the working class who you would happily exploit to further your own self interests!  The instrumentalist approach to fellow workers that comes across when you say “I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”  will be take  a step further and put  into practice should you come to run a business and use these self same fellows to enrich yourself.

Well I wouldn’t be working class if I ran a business, would I? So no I can’t say that if I were an incredibly rich businessman that I would remain a socialist. I’d like to think I would but it could only be from the position of scientific interest rather than an actual material need for revolution.

robbo203 wrote:

No it does not it.  He is talking about the morality of the  oppressed class vis-a-vis the morality of the ruling class.  Your contention is that ” morality is the expression of ruling class interests”. Period

Clearly not my position. I hope I’ve shed some more light on my feelings about morality. I can go further and say that as morality does not exist in any objective form and that basing thought on it will only result in fallacies.

[Ed]

I’m saying people are more angry by what they’ve lost than what they’ve never had. It’s always been the case that higher material conditions resulting from the most industrialized societies are more likely to produce class conscious workers.Past movements have failed mainly due to lacking a class conscious majority and were led by a minority of class conscious people. So they didn’t know what they were fighting for. But there’s no one reason for me there’s loads of reasons reformism being one. But if there had been a class conscious majority reformism would have been unnecessary. (after the means of production had reached a level which could sustain socialism)

[Ed]

very true that’s why the decline is the important part. abysmal conditions alone are not enough. If you’ve never smoked a cigarette then you won’t miss it. But try to take my fags away and I’ll kill you.

[Ed]

I actually think that an underlying moralism is what’s wrong with the working class movement in general. It certainly is the motivation of most communist parties and the rest of the left wing.This should come as no surprise though as we are not in a situation where material conditions have declined enough to inspire enough people to take up their own self interests/class interests

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism”

Morality is the expression of ruling class interests. Anything can and has been be justified morally, murder, rape, slavery, genocide anything you like. It is then used as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life. On an individual level morality is very rarely the same as anyone else and thus can not be measured in any objective way. It’s also mostly bullshit anyway, what people will say that they find morally acceptable they’ll happily break without batting an eyelid. And that is the real point socialists who think they are acting on moral grounds can quite easily change their mind when they find something morally wrong.Like the issue of violence in a revolution. To reject violence because it’s morally wrong is idealist claptrap. But to say it’s the most conducive way to set up a society based on “….from each according their needs” then it’s correct.

robbo203 wrote:

How many times have I heard socialists come out with the assertion: “I want socialism because it is in my material self interests.”  It makes me cringe every time I hear this because it is so misleading. Actually,  if it really was the case that what drives you to want socialism is self interest and nothing else then you would be better advised to cease forthwith your dilettantish dabbling in a revolutionary socialist political movement and focus your energies on becoming a capitalist instead –  or at least stabbing your fellow workers in the back on your way up the career ladder or whatever Yes, of course “self interest” is involved to an extent but other things matter too and this is the  point . I find it extraordinary that the above post can even invoke the idea of “material class interests” without seeing that in alluding to the interests of others in the working class you are actually and unavoidably adopting a moral perspective!  Morality, like I said is other oriented.  So the “case for socialism” must  by definition to an extent be grounded in morality if it involves workers coming to identify with each other on a class basis.

I want socilaism because it’s in my self interest. But I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class. You sound like that Gina Rinehart. “It’s easy to become a millionaire like me you just have to work harder”. It’s complete bollocks. There are only rare instances where people can catapult themselves into the bourgeois class from starting out with nothing. And even then they’re usually supported through higher education and receive some start up capital. Most of the world don’t have that luxury and never will. You might as well say “why don’t you buy a lotterry ticket it’s in your best interest” despite the fact that your chances of winning are 116,531,800/1 (euro millions). Funnily enough those are probably about the same odds of becoming part of the bourgeois proper. Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour. Of course revolution would then not be in my self interest and I would be a socialist on purely scientific grounds.

robbo203 wrote:

Oddly enough Engels hinted at the kind of position I’m advocating here in his Anti Duhring

And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressed” (F Engels Anti-Dühring, Moscow 1947, p117).I think this supports my position much more than yours

[Ed]

A group of workers enter the boss’s office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory”You can’t”, says the boss. “I own it””And how did you come to own it” asks one of the workers.”It was left to me by my father”, says the boss”How did he get it?” asks the worker.”He got it from his father”, says the boss.”And he?” asks the worker.”From his father”, says the boss.”And he?” persists the worker.”He fought for it”, says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.”Well”, say the workers, all together this time, “We’ll fight you for it”.

[Ed]

I think it’s a shame that this article didn’t spark more attention and analysis. It does have something to say about not only the current attitude of workers towards politics but also political parties of which we are one. I would think that the critics who slam the party’s policies for excluding certain people would be interested to know that almost every political party’s membership is falling no matter what the politics. I think it says a lot about the viability of a mass party, it’s just not possible at the moment even if there were an upsurge in class concious workers. Not that we have ambitions of being a mass party anyway, which seems to be the opinion of some.

[Ed]

As far as I’m concerned there is no need for an apology from either side. It is a misunderstanding. He says he’s not a liar then I believe him I’ve no reason not to. But if someone says they’re making things up then what am I to think? I accept that he was joking and he’s explained what he meant. We now, hopefully understand each other and as far as I’m concerned the issue is resolved with no ill feeling from me.

[Author]

Posts