KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:It is not true, eiher, that anarchism is a subset of socialism. Some anarchists do stand for socialism (as a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society) but only a minority.
Well, aye, but that would equally apply to the majority of bods calling themselves socialist! Self-labelled anarchists have always been pretty diverse, both in principles and tactics, but if we take the 'big men' (the equivalent of Marx) – Kropotkin and Bakunin – would fit the bill. The same could be said of the organised anarchist groups in this country, both historically and contemporary. Personally, I think it is no coincidence that the SPGB stall at the London Anarchist Book Fair was busy, busy, busy (SS sold out I believe). 'Propaganda of the deed' and 'illegalism' – obviously there were dicks back in the day too.
Rusty Pigfumbler wrote:No one put it better than Stalin: 'Some people believe that Marxism and Anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics…This is a great mistake. We believe that Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.' The founders of the Socialist Party would have endorsed this.Gurgle! Splutter! Not sure if quoting that murderous old red fascist is an appropriate way to back up SPGB principles and policy. Like the SPGB, anarchists certainly were the enemies of Stalin's 'Marxism' even if some collaborated with it (they all came to sticky ends). The true enemy of all socialists (anarchists being a subset) is capitalism, although some seem to have trouble recognising this. If the Founders really did endorse this sentiment, incidentally, why would they be selling literature by Kropotkin – the 'Anarchist Prince'?
Mike Foster wrote:Personally, I'd like more dialogue with anarchist groups, in the spirit of learning about different approaches and perspectives.Mike: With one or two exceptions, I honestly don't think the modern anarchist movement has much to teach the SPGB. It's pretty toxic to be honest. One problem that we do share, however, is a participation problem. In terms of organisation, the new ACG is making attendance at full meetings (ADM/ Conference equivalent) compulsory (ie you have to have a good excuse not to be there) – in the same way that SPGB EC members are supposed to attend EC meetings – and abolished formal delegation (you can forward your views via any member who is attending). I'm not suggesting the SPGB does this but seems like a good idea to me. It also avoids the problem of using delegate status to legitimise your own views. I've probably done this in the past before.
I've put a smiley there to indicate that I am, once again, being a smart arse bastard. I was kind of hoping that someone might comment about the hostility clause. Clearly it works both ways.
Links to other organisations: I suggested that we also open channels to the SPGB. Chappy (who takes the Standard and thinks youse guys are swell!) shot me down in flames. It was kind of inappropriate as I can't see any of that stuff appealing to any of you in retrospect or even being allowed given the hostility clause. By the way, am I still entitled to be on here? I got wiped off the AFed's one asap.
Mr B: I am right in saying you are not (and have never) been a member of the AF? By the way, in reply I would say that the abolition of money (by itself) is similarly not freedom. But I am a pedantic wee gite.
The SPGB is different. Other groups sensibly dismiss anyone spouting this sort of nonsense as a troll, a flamer or just plain nuts. The SPGB engages with them to their heart's content. Incroyable!
Szaviels: Socialism is not about "removing corruption from government". It's about removing the capitalist class. And the problem with capitalism is not "funds going towards politicians". It's about profits going to the capitalist class. We actually can't predict how the revolution – the change from capitalism to socialism – will take place, whether it will be violent and sudden or gradual and peaceful. One thing we can predict is that a referendum of the sort suggested here, will (like the recent Euro-Ref) change nothing.
TG: Next Thursday okay for you? However, this one is about Socialsim which is quite a different thing from socialism! Not sure what but something to do with simulation. I think we're pretending that we're not living as random atomised individuals in a mad consumerist devil-take-the-hindmost free-for-all which is all going to end in some hideous apocalyptic disaster. It would have to be pretend since there has been no such thing as society since 31 October 1987. The Thatcher woman abolished it. Incidentally, nobody noticed but they got the initials backward during the real referendum. The UK just voted to withdraw from the UE – United Earth. This could be a problem if the Vulcans decide to invade.
This sitewww.historybits.com/thugs-thuggees.htmgives a death toll of two million, which is way up in the old "how many did they kill" stakes (it's poor quality so that figure is pretty dubious). More realistically, Mike Dash gives a mere 50,000.TK is quite right. Comparisons are odious. In fact they are a puerile capitalist rhetorical device to stop questioning of their norms?
Timmy old boy, you've got it in a nutshell. Clearly nobody noticed the sarcasm in "doubtless", which was supposed to guard against fruitless indepth speculation of this sort, nor the addenda, which were supposed to indicate that such a referendum would, in fact, be pretty much worthless. I thought my question was pretty plain but clearly I was not being brutal enough. Subtlety, like humour, is not big in the SPGB. I am posing a question about *democracy* and how we understand it. So once again:*Is 52% good enough?*
