[jpodcaster]

Not sure how an internet discussion group can "enter a new party" anyhow?JP 

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

" WIC has not decided to "enter the new party" since that would be completely at variance with its stated purpose."Out of curiousity what arguments pro or con were raised in this WIC decision? Did a debate on the question actually take place?

If I can reply for Robin. To say that someone has "not decided" to do something is not the same as saying "they decided not to" do it. 

[jpodcaster]

Hi Alan – yes, the World in Common website was hacked and malware introduced – all the files have been removed and disinfected now (although the warning still appears in some browsers).JP 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

" WIC has not decided to "enter the new party" since that would be completely at variance with its stated purpose."Out of curiousity what arguments pro or con were raised in this WIC decision? Did a debate on the question actually take place?BTW, my browser raises a malware warning when i tried to go to World in Common website, something to look into. Often they are false alarms but it scared me off and probably others. 

[jpodcaster]

jpodcaster wrote:

Welcome to politics Bill – its a messy business. Alternatively you could always establish a central dinner committee to tell everyone where they'll be going?

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Or, we could organise a Dinner group based on the agreement of what a restuarant is, and how to get there, first, instead of trying to reconcile incommensurates.  The idea of unity between Labour reformists who don't want socialism, Stalinist and Trotskyist totalitarians and woolly libertarians is the opposite of politics.  Politics is deciding what you want to do, and how to do it, not agreeing to submerge those two key things for the sake of 'unity'. 

But Bill – you've been trying to organise this dinner party for 100 years and despite sending out invitations to everyone its only you and your mates who ever turn up! Whether that's because of your definition of what the restaurant is or how to get there, or the fact that your invited guests know that they'll be bored out their skulls listening to a small group of white men talk about the state capitalist nature of the former USSR, doesn't matter. The fact is – and I can't believe a group calling themselves scientific socialists can't see this – something has gone badly wrong with either your objective, your strategy or your tactics (or a combination of all three). 

[jpodcaster]

ALB wrote:

jpodcaster wrote:

And there we have the real epitath of the SPGB: "Missing a trick since 1904." (copyright John Crump)

Bit of a cheek to try to use John Crump to back up Stuart's case (and yours?) for a new leftwing reformist party which rejects socialism (as a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society) as an impossible and irrelevant long-term dream and which wants to concentrate on trying to obtain or retain "possible" reforms of capitalism. He shared this aim and differed from us mainly in that he came to disagree with using parliament in the course of establishing it. 

You knew him much better than I but I wouldn't necessarily agree that he would have rejected LU. For example in his resignation letter he talked of the likelihood of a working-class socialist party being formed outside of the SPGB. Also let's not forget that, whatever your views on the "wishy-washy reformism" of LU, the organisation contains a significant minority of men and women with a commitment to a socialism virtually indistinguishable from that envisaged by the SPGB, including ex-members and sympathisers. What will happen to them post-Nov 30th is anybody's guess but if the Left Party Platform is adopted I hope they will stay part of the organisation and make it a genuinely pluralist party to the left of Labour.

ALB wrote:

We'll be there at that hotel in Bedford Square a week Saturday to hand free copies of it. Maybe see youse there.

I hope to be there – would be good to catch up after all these years!

[jpodcaster]

Welcome to politics Bill – its a messy business. Alternatively you could always establish a central dinner committee to tell everyone where they'll be going?

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'm in the middle of organising our works Winterval Dinner.  We are united around going for dinner (except those who don't actually want to go).  Some want to go to an Indian restaurant, some want to go to Thai, but we are all part of Dinner Unity.  We are united in Dinner Unity, and we can work together, despite wanting to go to different restaurants.  We believe in Dinner.  Just don't ask us to define it (some think it has to include meat, others don't).  But we want to go to each restaurant we want to go to by different routes.  But we are still Dinner Unity.  Some people think that we don't need to set a time for arrival, so long as we travel together, and while dinner is nice in principle, we have to eat lots of unhealthy snacks in the meantime as a lesser evil.  Some think that the restuaraunt is inimportant, and it is the journey that matters.  But we are still Dinner Unity.  Oh, and we all hate each other, and are sneaking behind each other's backs to try and undermine each other, and impose our choices of Restaurant, route and time on each other.  But we are still Dinner Unity.Now, I have a ballot to re-run using the Condorcet count.

[jpodcaster]

Oh go on then. My favourite bit:"The result of this is that socialism is projected as an ideal (and usually) remote system of society. Only a half-hearted effort is made to connect it with the actual problems which confront the working class and what is more important is that scarcely any attempt at all is made to relate the concept of socialism to the ideas circulating among workers which have been thrown up as they grapple with these problems and search for answers to them. No one doubts the good intentions of the utopians when they declare that “Socialists put forward the case for a new world of common ownership and democratic control, trying to get workers to see their problems from this stand point (Socialist Standard, June 1966 p83). Any objective examination of their methods, however, can only reveal their total inability to form bridges between what workers are thinking now and what the utopians hope they start thinking in the future. Even when a virtually tailor-made issue such as “free transport” presents itself the utopians are incapable of recognising the opportunities it offers. For them it is just another aspect of the “the passing show” so that the suggestion that it could be used in order to encourage some workers to think beyond the ideas of abolishing certain prices, which has already aroused their interest, in the direction of a society of completely free access to all products is met with blank incomprehension."http://libcom.org/library/resignation-letter-1973-john-crump

stuartw2112 wrote:

Jools: John Crump? That sounds like the kind of thing that should be reprinted and circulated?

[jpodcaster]

stuartw2112 wrote:

By the way, everyone I've talked to in Left Unity rather likes the SPGB. Andrew Burgin says he likes you, a member of my branch reguarly talks about "the abolition of money", another demanded to know where he could buy a copy of the Socialist Standard, others take it seriously even if they don't agree with it. With your silly mudslinging and sectarianism, you are, as usual, missing a trick.

And there we have the real epitath of the SPGB: "Missing a trick since 1904." (copyright John Crump)

[jpodcaster]

"We are socialist because our vision of society is one where the meeting of human needs is paramount, not one which is driven by the quest for private profit and the enrichment of a few. The natural wealth, productive resources and social means of existence will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole, rather than being owned and controlled by a small minority to enrich themselves." http://leftunity.org/towards-a-new-left-party/ Doesn't sound like 'wishy-washy left reformism' to me. Indeed I think its possible that Left Unity could (could) become the kind of organisation that Max Rubel was alluding to in Non-Market Socialism when he spoke of revolutionary reformism. Yes, there are Trotskyists in Left Unity but I trust the democratic organisational structure of LU enough to prevent any serious entryism.JP

[jpodcaster]

YMS – Of course there's no common objective yet because LU is essentially a forum for open dialogue until November 30th when, presumably, a more precise set of goals/objectives/strategies will be drawn up.Of course that won't matter to you because your party has the correct goals/means/definition of socialism.Where's that rolling-eyes emoticon again … 

[jpodcaster]

Alan – I haven't been to any Left Unity meetings yet but I'm not sure you're correct in saying that members of the Left have been quiet. In the website forum, yes, but the vast majority of debate seems to be happening via the comments section of the various articles on the main LU website. And it all seems to be relatively good natured, up front and comradely, despite Adam wanting to portray the imminent demise of LU due to "squabbling Trotskyist sects."Adam – although the Socialist Platform for me should be a lot more tempting ideologically, I think Stuart is absolutely right to support the Left Party Platform. For me now – ten years ago I'd have been fully behind the socialist platform – its a question of pragmatism. If the socialist platform is adopted it is highly likely that the vast majority that signed up to the LU pledge would be alienated and likely walk away from the organisation, particularly if there was a power struggle between socialist groups. What we'd end up with is a tiny party with revolutionary socialist principles. And there's already one of those, right?On the other hand the Left Party Platform is far broader in scope and potentially brings together a much wider collection of individuals with different interests and views including, but not limited to, revolutionary socialists. Why is that appealing to me? Because I think if real social change is going to happen we have to learn to work alongside people with different ideas and interests and backgrounds than us but who are still united by a belief in core principles such as solidarity, co-operation, common ownership and democratisation. Is the Left Party Platform perfect? No, of course not – I would personally like to see a more strongly worded anti-capitalist thread running through it and a stronger committment to deepen and extend 'the commons' in all its forms. But at the moment I think its the best of the three platforms in terms of the future of Left Unity as an organisation that is likely to make a real difference on the political stage.I guess we'll see what happens?Julian

[jpodcaster]

I'm not sure its fair to say there are splits within Left Unity (at least not yet). There are three discernible platforms but at this stage they are just that, not a split.(This article makes the case that the platfoms are a positive development and I think he's right: http://leftunity.org/on-the-platform-debate-in-left-unity-and-a-note-on-… ) It will be interesting to see what happens post-Nov 30th when one of the platforms (presumably) becomes adopted. The shit may indeed hit the fan but until then I think we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.From what I've read to the untrained eye the 'socialist platform' is indistinguishable from something you might find in world socialist literature. There might be a few giveaways but on the whole I'd wager that the vast majority of the 9000 who signed up to the Left Unity pledge couldn't give two hoots about the any minor differences. I think you're right about it being unlikely that the socialist platform will be accepted, however, even though some have argued that Left Party Platform represents the better opportunity for bringing together the widest range of voices including libertarian socialists, anarchists, feminists, council communists etc:  So shoot me down in flames but here's a suggestion to WSM members, sympathisers and other libertarian socialists – sign up to the pledge and get involved in Left Unity. See if we can influence the direction the organisation takes. See if we can learn something from working in an organisation where there are a multitude of different voices all pulling in the same direction, even though things will undoubtedly get messy at times. We would have a captive audience of 9000+ working-class people who are looking for a genuine alternative to the failed politics of the left and to capitalism as an economic system. What's the worst that could happen? WSM members would presumably not be breaking any party rules … at least not until Nov 30th and then only if the organisation constitutes itself as a political party.http://leftunity.org/which-way-for-left-unity-the-case-for-the-left-party-platform/That's what I'll be doing. Imagine how brilliant it would be to be part of a genuinely open and democratic organisation that included libertarian socialists, anarchists, councillists, syndicalists, feminists and thousands of working people fighting against austerity and working towards a post-capitalist society?  

[jpodcaster]

Did he reply?I have fond memories of The State in Capitalist Society – it was a recommended read for A level Sociology students back in the 80s (that is it was recommended by my A level lecturer who was at the time an SPGB member …)

[jpodcaster]

Bit late to the party on Left Unity (excuse the pun) but I've been reading a few online reports of its initial meeting. My immediate reaction is if that if the likes of SW are involved then it must have something going for it beyond the (re)-construction of yet another failed attempt to unite the left? A few observations/questions:(a) Why 'Left Unity' when by its own admission the ISN are officially excluding organisations of the left from participating? Or perhaps they are not – maybe they are excluding organisations but not the individuals who comprise them? In which case how do they stop LU becoming yet another front for one of the Trot sects?(b) The language that Ken Loach used in his speech is interesting to me. He talks about the need to replace capitalism with an economy held in common (which he calls socialism). He also talks in vague terms about socialism being about looking out for each other, caring for the sick/elderly. At some point LU are surely need to get more specific on what they are organising for (as opposed to against). This could go one of two ways I suppose. My bet would be on a variant of state-controlled market 'socialism' where an 'economy held in common' is equated with state ownership/control. Or, if DW is correct and LU is attracting a whole new generation of radicals untainted by traditional left politics, then could it be pushed in a more radical direction towards common ownership/democratic control?(c) How on earth did 80 LU locals spring up practically overnight? Are they drawing on existing structures or is it genuinely a new network? (d) How are they differentiated from the Green Party? To my mind the GP is now to the left of the Labour Party and has many of the same policies as I'd imagine LU will end up supporting. Plus it has local and national representation and a growing membership base. I wonder what the attitude of prominant GP-ers such as Derek Wall and Peter Tatchell will be towards LU?(e) LU seems to be desiring a fully democratic structure – one person one vote, control residing in local groups, delegates, open publication of meeting minutes etc. Perhaps they have learnt something from the SPGB … Jools

[Author]

Posts