KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mr B! Why you no post more? This very useful stuff, well researched. Most posters no good gobshites.
My understanding, contrary to SS's article, is that, in an Indian context, the Thuggee were ordinary road bandits, a product of the decay of the Mughal Empire. Their elevation to 'religious status' was part of a propaganda effort of the British to justify their reign of terror ('civilising mission') by dissing the 'backward' and 'uncivilised' 'natives'. The religious content was probably no more than the "good luck" associated with a black cat crossing your path (to take a familiar English cultural reference). You can read about this in Mike Dash's accessible and informative Thug. Religion (hindu, moslem ,christian or alleged thuggee) does not cause murder, real material circumstances do.
I believe that this stuff originates in Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, which I have just reread. Some of the statements in there do come across as pretty bad, temporary and explicable or not. The sort of 'assimilation' that Engels was boosting was the same as that practiced in Wales by the English. A whack on the knuckles and a dunce's cap for the little welshie and a spell in the cells for his dad. Speak English or suffer.Rather than get into one of those textual analysis debates, I'd like to turn the question to Sympo's question about whether a racist or homophobe can be a socialist.Surely there can be no doubt about William Morris's claim to be a socialist but in News From Nowhere the attitudes to women strike me as being very patriarchal.I think the answer lies with the way that socialists necessarily work within the context of their societies. One cannot expect the social attitudes of a socialist within a severely patriarchal or ultra-religious society (eg. in the Middle East) to be the same as those of a ''modern', 'advanced' society such as ours.Does that mean that we should tolerate the sort of offhand racist, sexist, homophobic shit that I have heard repeatedly in Party circles? Hell no.
Almost certain that MB never was in the AF or its predecessor the ACF. The late Bob Miller, MB's long time compadre, certainly was. In fact, according to hearsay, he wrote the AF's Aims and Principles (afed.org.uk/about/aims-principles), which bears traces of the SPGB's D of P. Though obviously highly extended to cover all the bases. Note the clauses about unions and religion. Incidently, there is no mention, even implicitly by the omission of "exchange" (as in means of production, distribution and exchange) as per the D of P, of free access or the abolition of money.ALB: I wouldn't say the AF doesn't like anarcho-syndicalists (it shares a sensibly small office with the SolFed). But it is not a syndicalist organisation itself (note the remarks in clause 7 of the A&P). The anarchism of the SCW was most peculiar and labelling it anarchist-syndicalist in the article's title might well be fair comment as well as being a way of distancing it from main stream anarchism. The change of title might also indicate a change in political allegiance of the authors.Incidentally, in relation to Punk's accusation that I am some sort of fascist, trying to close down 'free' discussion, I would point out that all of this nonsense, which stinks of utopian-idealism, is freely available to anyone wishing to criticise the Party. It is not just idle pub talk. The Forum, being internal, has zero propaganda value. At best, it is a diversion from this purpose. At worst, useful only to those who, consciously or unconsciously, wish to discredit the Party.
I have been following this thread for some time and have been quite as appalled by YMS's "practical steps" as by Robbo's free access fetishism. So I was overjoyed to see the mention of "workers' and community councils" by AJJ (to which the correct Party response should have been a vigorous and merciless attack rather than yet another 'practical step'). How else will the cooperative commonweath (love that term) actually be achieved? This is social revolution we are talking about. Not some bureaucratic rearrangement of economic procedures or gradual accumulation of passive measures both with the aim of the institution of super-consumerism (beer for nothing and your chips for free). Once again, I am convinced that I am in the wrong organisation.
Bit late but went to this. International struggles were France and China. Light on the last, heavy on the first. Best meeting I've been to for yonks. Well run. Informative. Inspiring. Did I put the Party case? No need to.
He's a clever old boy, ALB, ain't he? Ye ramble on for days (both of ye buggers are wrong incidentally) and he pokes in something to stop ye dead!
Socialism/ communism is not the same as the moneyless society. You started this discussion with that very admission. The abolition of money is a (probable) product not the aim. The Aim is stated before the D of P (I's so old school).I think the history of the evolution of the money meme in SPGB circles will have to be my subject. I have sent a great file to Mike Foster dealing with this but not sure if he intended anything but a display. Timeline: Off hand, late '60s, but was always tacitly understood.USP: It is not the complications of implementation but the geekiness of the concept of the abolition of money I object to. We put ourselves in the same category as Zeitgeist? Head geeks of Geek City. USPs are a capitalist concept rooted in the bourgeois ideology of marketing, catering to the lowest common denominator, accepting the derogatory notion of the eight second attention span.Socialism is simple but requires a certain amount of mental working out. Robbo might use the word cerebration. We make it over-intellectual at our peril. But over-simplification, the boiling down into a series of "thou shalts" (such as "thou shalt have no money") is far worse and is the cause of all the problems the Partly is currently experiencing.Jack Bradley: Alas not online. I can send you some stuff from the archives or scan it and ask someone to put stuff on the web. Technically it was (Enfield and) Haringey branch rather than individual activity. Surprised you don't know. You bin around yonks.
To be more direct: I find an alarming strain of substitutionalism in the previous discussion. It really does seem that there is a strain of thinking that views the revolution as merely the seizure of state power by the SPGB through the electoral process! Or, just as bad, the permeation of 'socialist thinking' as a result of SPGB-type propaganda. We are talking of a social revolution for crying out loud! Not just poxy LETS schemes! Or some nice clean administrative reorganisation by the 'democratically elected delegates'. The workers themselves are going to sort this stuff out. If you really must speculate on how distribution will take place, take some concrete historic examples of how, when left to themselves, workers organise this sort of thing.
"Keep it simple" absolutely. Clearly, you all disagree with this. Could I remind those present, that "keep it simple" is exactly the view of the Founders of 1904. They did not even talk openly of the abolition of money! Let alone in which top down bureaucratic or geeky gradualist way to do it. We do not benefit from this sort of fruitless speculation. Free Access can be cute. I always found Jack Bradley's stuff particularly endearing, even if I didn't agree with it. How it's done is SLP embarrassing. US not Scargill.
Am I the only one slightly alarmed by the tone of some of these comments? Revolution Day? Coming to power? Why not quote the Money Abolition Clause of the Socialism Enabling Act? Frankly, the precise method of distribution can only be worked out at the time, in the light of real life experiences, which will take place during the revolutionary process.
