jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you gnome. From what I have read, I regard the two Socialist Parties of Canada as seperate, but many members of the WSM one claim continuity with the first, on the basis of the majority of impossibilists in contrast to a minority of reformists (in effect the reverse of the situation in the Social Democratic Federation in Britain). Hence the original question.As for general strike not being an impossibilist tactic, sure the Winnipeg General Strike wasn’t revolutionary, but impossibilists support the class struggle and the principle of workers organising collectively to better their working conditions under capitalism.
Just watched it and its pretty obvious why no-one wants to end the government monopoly on issuing legal tender.
The main commentators equating the two come from Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Ron Paul is the most famous but Glenn Beck was fond of it too.The slogan One World, One People is hardly comparable to the term socialist.I can certainly see nothing clearly and positively expressing the uniqueness of our case in the slogan, and would argue that its vagueness and totalitarian undertones can only be harmful for the case.
There is a serious reason why we should never use “One World, One People” as a slogan. Fringe conspiracists are the tip of the iceberg of people who might find the slogan “One World, One People” eerily totalitarian. Its vagueness feeds into this. The tens of millions who get their news from commentators on Fox News would probably reject us on this basis. Since Glenn Beck worked for Fox News and used minor socialist parties to scaremonger, its not out of the question that the WSM/SPGB might come to the attention of one of these commentators. Using “One World, One People” would be a gift to those commentators who equate National-Socialism with Socialism since the main slogan of National Socialism began with “Ein Volk, Ein Reich”. I can only hope that we have long since consigned “One World, One People” to the rubbish bin where it deserves to be by then.
I don’t think the party requires of members a particular opinion on metaphysics.Religions exist that do not believe in higher powers, or afterlives, or are personal, or are organised so I think these are all red herrings of a definition.What characterises all religion is that the process that it makes assertions (generally not restricted to metaphysics) is not strictly through reason, rationalisation, deduction, observation or testing.Even if religion did restrict itself to metaphysics, then would assertions not made strictly through reason, rationalisation, deduction, observation or testing be a wise basis for membership?Some in the party can be dismissive of peoples experiences but an explanation for your experiences arrived at through reasoning, deduction, testing shouldn’t be dismissed either. If time has elapsed for a particular experience then this does not invalidate the scientific method. Incidentally this is the approach of Fortean Times that anomalous phenomena offer some insight into the scientific method or the fallback approach of the guise of open-mindedness.If you join the party because you think the politics are nice rather than rational testable, what’s stopping you changing your mind?If members hold irrational ideas then that is not an argument for introducing more irrational ideas.If demeaning, patronising, condescending attitudes are being exhibited then that is being detrimental to the party. I agree that criticism should be engaged with and not scoffed at.
There is already an organised group of supporters of the SPGB who admit religious people, its called World in Common and I think it is smaller than the SPGB.
The reason Winstanley can be considered a socialist is because of the history of science and atheism. The social acceptability of atheism and scientific advances in explaining phenomena made over the last 150 years make adherance to ideas not scientifically testable (or even ideas contrary to scientific explanations) more and more of an irrational position.
From The Western Socialist No.2 1966 “God is Dead” by Rab,Like Engels’ “shame-faced materialists” of the 19th century, the Rationalists who gave materialist explanations for all phenomena but metaphysical rationalizations for their uncertainties, the “God is Dead” clergymen cling to their adherence to a meaningless “religion,” freed, as it is alleged, from a belief in a supernatural power, a belief which alone constitutes the very essence of all religions. Remove the “supernatural” and there is no religion left.
